Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 14, 2005
7.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1380 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
986
Mixed:
152
Negative:
242
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
7
Critic2012Apr 21, 2012
With KING KONG, Peter Jackson has added yet another epic film to his resume'. Ground-breaking special effects, along with an excellent plot and cast, makes the film thoroughly engrossing, (and at times, terrifying). The only drawback is theWith KING KONG, Peter Jackson has added yet another epic film to his resume'. Ground-breaking special effects, along with an excellent plot and cast, makes the film thoroughly engrossing, (and at times, terrifying). The only drawback is the length. (And many agree on this point). The film could have intensified exponentially if only it was a good two and a half hours instead of three and change. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
beingryanjudeSep 3, 2014
Peter Jackson's re-imagination of King Kong is a swell time to spend three hours. The new vision is stunning and heartfelt--he is influenced by the original work, but brings a new focus to the story.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
JuanoloMar 31, 2012
First off, this is a 9.5 out of 10. Effects are spectacular. To king kong, to environments, to dinosaurs, to epic airplane battles, this movies have awesome visual effects. Score is good, Acting well done, and story is good. Probably long andFirst off, this is a 9.5 out of 10. Effects are spectacular. To king kong, to environments, to dinosaurs, to epic airplane battles, this movies have awesome visual effects. Score is good, Acting well done, and story is good. Probably long and pulled on but still good. Overall, great movie. A great blockbuster. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Trev29Mar 30, 2013
A lavish long-winded beautiful bore. Compacted with unnecessarily elongated scenes that take away from the central theme. A movie at first you enjoy but are then forced to endure.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
watithink123Apr 15, 2012
Best King Kong by a long shot. Worth watching with a friend and much better than the other ones. King Kong 7.4
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
OfficialDec 29, 2013
Yes, "King Kong" is slightly overlong (theatrical: 187 minutes, extended: 201 minutes), but you cannot deny that it is an emotional and powerful epic. Director Peter Jackson, who also helmed the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, once again bringsYes, "King Kong" is slightly overlong (theatrical: 187 minutes, extended: 201 minutes), but you cannot deny that it is an emotional and powerful epic. Director Peter Jackson, who also helmed the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, once again brings us a memorable, visually stunning adventure. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
SpangleApr 12, 2016
Both incredibly racist and sexist, King Kong is a classic tale that so overlong it truly hurts. While entertaining and well acted, the film could have stood to be far shorter. Fortunately, it packs its overstuffed runtime with entertainingBoth incredibly racist and sexist, King Kong is a classic tale that so overlong it truly hurts. While entertaining and well acted, the film could have stood to be far shorter. Fortunately, it packs its overstuffed runtime with entertaining sequences and spectacular special effects. Naomi Watts is fantastic here and brings raw emotion to the role as the white woman whose beauty and whiteness tames the savage black man. While the overt racism inherent in the story suffocates it pretty good, racist films can still be quite good and King Kong is a perfect example of this. There is a seriously epic feel to the film and it is well handled by Jackson who knows his way around an epic. If the film was shorter, then the overall film would be far more enjoyable because the extravagant set pieces and scenes pack the right amount of power, but the filler winds up stunting that excitement. Heck, the film could keep all the scenes, but they could be just a touch shorter. Yet, the pay off was quite solid admittedly. Appropriately emotional and stirring, the ending really rips your heart out and makes you hate the people who did this to Kong. Overall, an appropriately epic blockbuster that entertains and thrills, but packed too much into just one film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
axelkochDec 10, 2012
It's an awesome adventure speaking of special effects. The team around this movie created such a great world, all props go to the CGI team. But in other aspects, this movie is too long, the cast is only mediocre (Jack Black is bad) and it'sIt's an awesome adventure speaking of special effects. The team around this movie created such a great world, all props go to the CGI team. But in other aspects, this movie is too long, the cast is only mediocre (Jack Black is bad) and it's got a ragged editing. The succeeding of scenes is often poor and so is the whole script. Nonetheless those things, I enjoyed the fantasy world really much and it's an entertaining and cool picture. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
MouthofSauronDec 19, 2012
"King Kong" is a wonderfully imagined retelling of a cinema icon. Perhaps it's an overlong adventure, but things start ratcheting up once Kong is finally introduced. Excellent filmmaking.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
JamesCannonApr 8, 2013
many either love it or hate it....I found it way over serious at times for the material and the first hour just drags forever. The cast doesnt have that good chemistry and it looks like a lot of the actors spent a lot of time in from of amany either love it or hate it....I found it way over serious at times for the material and the first hour just drags forever. The cast doesnt have that good chemistry and it looks like a lot of the actors spent a lot of time in from of a blue screen making funny faces. The middle hour is good but nothing really connects through out the movie and the cgi comes to the point where its too much. It is a challenging movie to make but its pretty flat most of the time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
cameronmorewoodNov 8, 2012
King Kong opens up quietly asking questions and provoking thoughts. It then entrances us by plucking us from our chairs and throwing us into a dazzling and breath-taking fantasy world created with some incredible special effects. To seal theKing Kong opens up quietly asking questions and provoking thoughts. It then entrances us by plucking us from our chairs and throwing us into a dazzling and breath-taking fantasy world created with some incredible special effects. To seal the deal, in its last hour, it grows close to our hearts and then floors us. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Compi24Nov 28, 2012
It may have dragged a bit in some parts but Peter Jackson's visually resplendent remake of "King Kong" still resonated well with me in the end.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
sil3nt_nickMar 24, 2013
Very good special effects although the plot line could have used a bit more.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
ScorpionMay 19, 2013
His technique is flawless part, bringing the screen one of the most beautiful scriptures that special effects can bring, but its history is truncated because there a lot of fantasy, and his cast is divided, on one side, Jack Black and JohnHis technique is flawless part, bringing the screen one of the most beautiful scriptures that special effects can bring, but its history is truncated because there a lot of fantasy, and his cast is divided, on one side, Jack Black and John goodmam sound naturally while A.Brodie and Naomi W. sound very theatrical because of the nature of their characters, but the film is still good, and shows that Peter Jacsom have a lot of creativity, even if it is not always for the good of the film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FranzHcriticJan 26, 2014
Peter Jackson displays his talents with visuals, and a coherent storyline. While I still dislike and fail to respect remakes, 'King Kong' is one of those out a million that work, thanks to Jack Black and Adrien Brody. And Serkis is the onlyPeter Jackson displays his talents with visuals, and a coherent storyline. While I still dislike and fail to respect remakes, 'King Kong' is one of those out a million that work, thanks to Jack Black and Adrien Brody. And Serkis is the only person who can make motion capture work well. While the film still has his corny moments, especially at the ends, you can slowly forget the running time and be somewhat enthralled in the icon of King Kong Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MovieGuysJan 17, 2014
King Kong is petty good in terms of story and acting, but its 187 minute runtime makes it feel like you're watching it for a month. While movies like Lawrence of Arabia and Gone With The Wind may be justifiably long, King Kong isn't.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
calhouniteMar 11, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Depends on which cut.

Director's cut where Kong shows some signs of life, they're about to finish him off, but Beauty jumps down on his belly from the top story of the building, and negotiates a reapproachment with the city, where Kong agrees to work in construction to pay off the damage.

Then Kong and her human lover agree to a civilized duel. Kong suggests arm wrestling but the guy suggest a count contest to 2. Kong bangs two fists in the pavement, considered a tie. so Beauty becomes a Mormon and marries them both, and they take up residence back on the top floor and they all join the social circuit..

Then Kong takes a dump in Times Square and is shipped by to Skullsville.

That gets an 8, but if get the Beauty killed a beast line ... 3
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
lukechristianscJul 31, 2014
there are so many king Kong movies like example the one that started from 1933 But this one is so much better then the 1933 version. King Kong is stunning it has creativity, imagination and talent.When you see this for the 100th or athere are so many king Kong movies like example the one that started from 1933 But this one is so much better then the 1933 version. King Kong is stunning it has creativity, imagination and talent.When you see this for the 100th or a million times you can understand that there's so much love that a beast and a woman and thats the love that the story on itself. you cant just watch this movie and skip the drama parts that watts love for the ape thats part of the passion and the story. You can understand that the love that a human and a animal thats part of kong's battle in the world. this movie would not be a huge hit if it wasn't for Peter Jackson even if he did not write the script it automatically it tells us he used his imagination in the screenplay or way it tells it adventure. Jackson its the new Steilberg he has a film makers eye with adventure, horror and its beautiful. Jackson has some movies that have a world of good imagination like the adventures of Titin. but there are some things wrong with his performance of directing like lord of the rings. Whats wrong with lord of the rings is its like a rush to the finish line. and we need to see it improve from Jackson thats the bad part of jackson that i dont like. kong is amazing movie. i hope theres king kong 2 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
Meth-dudeApr 26, 2014
Great cast,amazing acting and absolutely wonderful graphics.The movie is long but we don't see the time pass because the movie is so awesome.There is so many action scenes and the dinosaurs were realistic.I didn't like the original but this one wow!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
diogomendesJul 30, 2015
While some special effects (excluding King Kong himself) are lazily unfinished and its pace can sometimes be problematic, "King Kong" is a solid update of the 1933's picture thanks to talented performances and enthralling direction.

6.5/10
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
juliankennedy23Sep 5, 2014
King Kong 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keepKing Kong 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.

And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the screen with that most famous of dysfunctional cross species parings. And while you may be mumbling Stockholm Syndrome at the beginning (Not to mention whiplash, jeez Jackson turn down the rag doll physics on the Naomi Watts CGI effect. The way Kong flings her around she should end the film in a body cast) the romance seems to win even the cynics (yours truly) at the end.

The rest of the cast is also top notch with Jack Black playing an Orson Wells style director so well it is almost freighting. Speaking of frightening many people wondered aloud how Jackson would handle the racist caricature (by today standards) of the island natives especially considering the whole disturbing white wizard versus the "dark forces" subtext of the LOTR films. Not to worry the embarrassing stereotypes of happy dancing black people are mocked in the Kong stage show putting that embarrassing Hollywood episode to rest. Instead the residents of Skull Island are some of the scariest people ever put on film. Pushing the PG-13 rating to the limit they put the can back in cannibal. Bashing skulls, going into voodoo trances and kidnapping white woman they invoke the much happier stereotype of the true island savage. Hell they are scarier than the ape.

Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong isn't perfect. The special effects are overall top notch but when people run with dinosaurs the limit of the blue screen show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone). The other problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Critic0Jul 2, 2014
How do you make an alternative review of your favorite movie of all time by doing the remake of your favorite movie of all time? The answer is: you don't, but it must be done.

Surprisingly, this film satisfies fans of the original 1933
How do you make an alternative review of your favorite movie of all time by doing the remake of your favorite movie of all time? The answer is: you don't, but it must be done.

Surprisingly, this film satisfies fans of the original 1933 classic by giving us a fine homage with familiar aspects while still giving us a fresh start. It may not attract new fans but it pleases any who watches it.

The films strongest suits are its leading lady, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) who delivers a strong performance that rivals that of the original Fay Wray by giving us a more likable and brave character rather than just a mere damsel-in-distress. The effects are also very well done, Weta Digital gives us a living and believable Skull Island and Andy Serkis' performance as Kong is top-notch.

The downsides are in the film's supporting cast, they are good characters but Adrien Brody is just boring, really boring, and Jack Black is kind of a jerk, but that's Carl for you.

In conclusion, King Kong is a faithful remake to probably the greatest movie ever made.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
AliceofXFeb 7, 2016
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. In many ways King Kong is a great film. It's cinematic, it's epic! The beginning gives you the feel that you're in for a great film. But alas it's all down hill from there.

The biggest failure is in the action scenes that happen during the middle. There they fight a number of weird creatures and prehistoric beasts and it's all just so contrived and redundant. What was the point of all this? All it did was make me bored. It didn't help that it was very one toned so it was hard to tell what is going on. Plus the green screen was just terrible. Immersion in the world: zero.

The second, and by far the most awkward thing about this film, was the film makers attempt to create some kind of romance between King Kong and Ann. Like supposedly in her brief time as a kidnapee she falls in love with him and all the time as I was watching it I wanted to yell: „lady, you're weird!" The whole thing is just bizarre.

But it's all just a shame because the movie has a good story and interesting metaphors about film. The things that are not butchered are done well. It had the potential for greatness but it missed the mark.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
evtsoaresDec 17, 2014
It is the unexplained feeling of watching King Kong . It is epic , a film that merges all of the seventh art styles . In my opinion the best ever made so far.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Le__XenomorphDec 29, 2014
A great King Kong remake with great acting and an especially terrific performance from Andy Serkis who's motion capture effects is the best CGI in the film as the dinosaurs looked fake. Overall, King Kong is a great remake and remains in myA great King Kong remake with great acting and an especially terrific performance from Andy Serkis who's motion capture effects is the best CGI in the film as the dinosaurs looked fake. Overall, King Kong is a great remake and remains in my top 10 monster flicks of all time. 8/10 (Great) Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
homer4presidentMar 11, 2015
King Kong is Peter Jackon's big, bold remake of the revered 1933 original. Getting off to a slow - though not uninteresting start, this movie really begins to shine once the Venture arrives at Skull Island, where Jackson and his team onceKing Kong is Peter Jackon's big, bold remake of the revered 1933 original. Getting off to a slow - though not uninteresting start, this movie really begins to shine once the Venture arrives at Skull Island, where Jackson and his team once again prove their spectacular prowess in the world of visual effects. The choreography and execution of the action scenes are nothing short of stunning (particularly in the one involving Kong and 3 T-Rex, as well as another that can only be described as a bug-phobic's worst nightmare.) Kong succeeds on the emotional level as well, playing out the platonic love-story with surprising poignancy and depth. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
acaiberryMar 19, 2015
This is one of my first reviews for a movie because this is one of the first DVDs I bought as a kid. If you're looking to watch this movie, please know that the camera/directing is very good and that you could be out of your chair at someThis is one of my first reviews for a movie because this is one of the first DVDs I bought as a kid. If you're looking to watch this movie, please know that the camera/directing is very good and that you could be out of your chair at some scenes. It is a breathtaking experience served with a unique but memorable plot. As far as music (I always check out the music), it is solid, and Andy Serkis has become such a pleasure to watch. Also, as much as it is exciting to watch, pay attention as most of the scenes are symbolic and I appreciate that as a film-lover.

The picture is on point but I will say this movie did get lengthy and it was hard to focus a few times.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MovieManiac83Apr 23, 2015
By choosing to re-make King Kong, an American iconic masterpiece, Peter Jackson set a task for himself higher than the Empire State Building. Making this movie wasn't just following up The Lord of the Rings, it was the fulfillment of aBy choosing to re-make King Kong, an American iconic masterpiece, Peter Jackson set a task for himself higher than the Empire State Building. Making this movie wasn't just following up The Lord of the Rings, it was the fulfillment of a lifelong dream. And, as with all such personal projects, this one ran the danger of not working because the director was too close to the material. (Steven Spielberg's Hook and Atom Egoyan's Ararat fall into that category.) Fortunately, Jackson's passion for the material did not dim his creative senses. By combining the best elements of the 1933 and 1976 versions of the film with his own contributions, Jackson has made what many will consider to be the definitive King Kong. There's no need to try this story again; it's doubtful it can be improved upon.

f there's a flaw in King Kong, it's that Jackson spends a little too long setting things up. It's understandable that he wants to spend some time with the characters so we get to know them before the action starts, but the 70-minute build-up seems excessive. There is an impact to early momentum, and some audience restlessness can be expected. While it's true that the two earlier movies also devoted the first third of their running times to setup, that amounted to 35 minutes for the 1933 picture and 45 minutes for the 1976 editions.

Once the action starts, however, it's difficult to find something more energetic, more daring, and more touching than King Kong. This is roughly two hours of the best movie-making available today. It's worth every penny (and more) that was spent bringing it to the screen. As eye candy goes, only Revenge of the Sith equals it from 2005, and King Kong is overall a richer and more satisfying cinematic experience.

Despite three prominent human actors, the star of the movie, as one might expect from the title, is the giant primate. Kong has gone from being an 18-inch high clay puppet to a man in a monkey suit to a beautifully rendered CGI creature. His range of motion and ability to react believably have improved with each incarnation. This Kong uses an amazing range of facial expressions and, when you look into his eyes, you can't believe he isn't real. Andy Serkis, who helped Jackson by "playing" Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, lends his motion capture skills to Kong, and the results are so stunning that one is tempted to believe that Jackson went to a South Pacific Island and found a 25-foot high ape. Kong shows nearly every emotion across the spectrum: puzzlement, rage, amusement, bemusement, possessiveness, tenderness, and affection. And Kong does some things that couldn't have been accomplished using any other special effects technique. Try orchestrating the T-Rex battle another way.

The musical score is nondescript, but perhaps that's not James Newton Howard's fault. He was selected by Jackson late in the process to replace Howard Shore, and only had a couple of months to write and record everything. The best thing that can be said about the music is that it's never intrusive. Visually, as one would expect, King Kong is a marvel. The decision to do no location shooting allows the Skull Island scenes to be eerie and claustrophobic. And Jackson's re-creation of Depression-era New York, while not rigorously accurate historically, fits nicely into a nostalgia mold.

It is possible for an old-time monster to make a triumphant re-appearance. Jackson's King Kong casts a huge shadow over the history of this "movie monster" - not big enough to eclipse the 1933 or 1976 tellings of the same story, but impressive enough to remind us that, with a wizard at the helm, there are times when re-makes can be glorious things.

Would of been a lot better if it had been 40 minutes shorter.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
darkbloodshed13May 22, 2015
"King Kong" is a good movie, not great, not bad, but good. Which arguably makes it worth the watch, since there vary view things to complain about, but also because there is a lack of stuff to be excited about. I wish I could say that this"King Kong" is a good movie, not great, not bad, but good. Which arguably makes it worth the watch, since there vary view things to complain about, but also because there is a lack of stuff to be excited about. I wish I could say that this movie was fantastic and you should go buy a copy, but you should only get this movie if your curious about, not if your looking for something to blow your mind. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
CineAutoctonoJul 21, 2015
Very good movie . a remake is not as famous as the 33 ' but even if errors scene brontosaurus stampede and participation of Jack Black in this action adventure movie and drama. This project has taken its format very well.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
EpicLadySpongeJan 20, 2016
A good remake of the original. What's so bad about it? Jack Black's in it. Other than that, it's a gorilla taking down a plane holding a woman reminding you how 1933 went by so fast.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
FuturedirectorJul 19, 2016
King Kong is known as one of the bests classics of the whole cinema history. Now, it's reboot tries to revive the main idea of the film with new stars and a new story-telling. So it's new style surely makes the original King Kong to beKing Kong is known as one of the bests classics of the whole cinema history. Now, it's reboot tries to revive the main idea of the film with new stars and a new story-telling. So it's new style surely makes the original King Kong to be embarrassed of the new special effects and the new amazing interpretations, despite the dull beginning. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
MovieMasterEddyApr 6, 2016
Among the reasons "King Kong" - the old 100-minute black-and-white version, that is - has retained its appeal over the years is that it reminds audiences of the do-it-yourself, seat-of-the-pants ethic of early motion pictures. In 1933, whenAmong the reasons "King Kong" - the old 100-minute black-and-white version, that is - has retained its appeal over the years is that it reminds audiences of the do-it-yourself, seat-of-the-pants ethic of early motion pictures. In 1933, when RKO released it, sound film was in its infancy, and film itself was in the midst of a coltish, irrepressible adolescence. Merian C. Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack, who directed the first "Kong," understood the alchemical convergence of gimmickry and sublimity that lay at the heart of the medium's unrivaled potential to generate spectacle and sensation.

That potential still exists, but it may be harder to find these days, given how much bigger and more self-important movies have become. In his gargantuan, mightily entertaining remake, "King Kong," Peter Jackson tries to pay homage to the original even as he labors to surpass it. The sheer audacious novelty of the first "King Kong" is not something that can be replicated, but in throwing every available imaginative and technological resource into the effort, Mr. Jackson comes pretty close.

The threshold of sensation has risen drastically since the 30's, when movies were still associated with older, somewhat disreputable forms of popular culture. Unlike the 1976 remake, which tried to drag the story into the corporate present, Mr. Jackson's version returns it to the Great Depression, reminding us that the road to the multiplex stretches back through the music halls and burlesque houses of those bygone days.

Of course, this new "King Kong" (written by Mr. Jackson and his frequent collaborators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) cost more than $200 million to make and can hardly be called scruffy. It arrives burdened with impossible expectations and harassed by competition from all sides. The director, who not so long ago was making low-budget monster movies in his native New Zealand, clearly wants to hold onto the artisanal, eccentric spirit of the past - his own and that of the art form he loves. But at the same time he must live up to the success of his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and prove to a glutted, gluttonous audience that large-scale, effects-driven filmmaking is still capable of novelty, freshness and emotional impact.

He succeeds through a combination of modesty and reckless glee, topping himself at every turn and reveling in his own showmanship. His "King Kong," though it has a few flourishes of tongue-in-cheek knowingness - including references to Cooper and Fay Wray and shots that directly quote the original - never feels self-conscious or arch. And though it presents the interspecies love story between Kong (Andy Serkis, who also plays a shipboard cook named Lumpy) and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) with touching sincerity, the picture wears its themes lightly, waving away the somber, allegorical sententiousness that too many blockbusters ("Lord of the Rings" included) rely upon to justify their exorbitant costs. The movie is, almost by definition, too much - too long, too big, too stuffed with characters and over-the-top set pieces - but it is animated by an impish, generous grace. Three hours in the dark with a giant, angry ape should leave you feeling battered and exhausted, but "King Kong" is as memorable for its sweetness as for its sensationalism.

After setting a nostalgic mood with Art Deco titles and James Newton Howard's old-fashioned movie-palace overture, "King Kong" plunges into a New York of vaudeville houses, soup lines and Hooverville encampments. Ann, a winsome, wholesome hoofer, is performing in a threadbare revue that shuts down just as Carl Denham (Jack Black) loses the star of his next movie. Somehow, he entices not only Ann, but also her favorite playwright, the Barton Finkish Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), onto a rusty tub whose unsavory captain (Thomas Kretschmann) captures and transports exotic animals. Denham's plan is to take his film crew - which also includes his anxious assistant (Colin Hanks) and lantern-jawed star (Kyle Chandler) - to Skull Island, where they will discover Kong.

The rapport between Ms. Watts and Mr. Serkis is extraordinary, even though it is mediated by fur, latex, optical illusions and complicated effects. Mr. Serkis, who also played Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, is redefining screen acting for the digital age, while Ms. Watts incarnates the glamour and emotional directness of classical Hollywood. Together they form one of the most unlikely and affecting screen couples since Anthony Quinn and Giulietta Masina did their beast and beauty act in "La Strada."

The climax of "King Kong" - one of the most familiar sequences in movies, and one that never grows old - exemplifies both tendencies. It is shameless and exalted, absurd and sublime, vulgar and grand. It's what movies were made for.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
avamiller21May 12, 2016
Epic movie! It's one of those wonderful, unforgettable stories, and this version's just epic!

Watch it online for free: http://www.watchfree.to/watch-520-King-Kong-movie-online-free-putlocker.html
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
CalibMcBoltsMay 30, 2016
Okay, i totally understand why people would dislike this film, it is long, it has a lot of CGI, good and bad, the acting may be campy, but for people who truly treasure the original 1933 film, this movie was a dream come true. At least for meOkay, i totally understand why people would dislike this film, it is long, it has a lot of CGI, good and bad, the acting may be campy, but for people who truly treasure the original 1933 film, this movie was a dream come true. At least for me it was.
I'm a massive lover of the original stop-motion, brilliantly crafted 1933 King Kong, i think it's an absolute masterpiece, and too see Peter Jackson, clearly a fan too, recreate that film, with state of the art special effect to reinvigorate this story, was heartwarming for me. The movie is longer, bigger, even more interesting, and i just love everything about it, because i love the original soo much. The movie gives you more information on each character, and their backstories, as expected for a movie almost double the length of the original, which was great for a fan like me to get to know more about the characters i've grown to love.

King Kong was a total blast for me, and a heartwarming experience, seeing the awesome original stop-motion clay puppet fight between the T-Rex and King Kong, realised and beautified with pitch-perfect CGI was just one of many things i loved about King Kong.
(The CGI of King Kong was absolutely astounding, obviously my compliments to Andy Serkis who pulls off yet another fantastic CG character performance, as he also did with The Lord of the Rings, the CGI of King Kong itself was beautiful, the rest of the movie's CGI was severely worse, especially a dinosaur stampede as the film crew has to flee out of a canyon, in that scene in particular the CGI was pretty bad.)

Of course this movie lacks the beautiful simplicity and artistery the original film had, but the way PJ has done it, was truly incredible in my honest opinion

I'm sorry King Kong haters, i'm completely on the other side of the spectrum on this one.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
darthbagginsDec 19, 2016
This is a one of a kind remake that actually is better than the original. The cast is excellent, the effects are groundbreaking and the emotion is strong. It is a very long film but it is three hours of brilliance.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ZerpnosMar 5, 2017
Sıkıcıydı, gerçekten sıkıcıydı. 3 saatlik bir film yapıp her saniye ne olduğunu göstereceklerine, 2 saatlik bir film yapıp saçma kısımları geçerek izleyiciyi sıkmadan, seyir zevki yüksek bir goril aşkı izletebilirlerdi. Maalesef bunun yerineSıkıcıydı, gerçekten sıkıcıydı. 3 saatlik bir film yapıp her saniye ne olduğunu göstereceklerine, 2 saatlik bir film yapıp saçma kısımları geçerek izleyiciyi sıkmadan, seyir zevki yüksek bir goril aşkı izletebilirlerdi. Maalesef bunun yerine 3 saatlik bir film yapmayı ve sadece 1 saatini New York'un eski zamanlarında ve gemide harcamışlar, izleyiciyi aşırı derece de sıkmışlardır. Ormanda ki yerlilerin saldırısı ve ayin kısımları sonrasında Kong'un kızı bulması ve 2-3 aksiyon sahnesinin ardından uzatmadan Kong'u yakalayıp, New Yorka götürüp ardından orada olanları izleyebilirdik. Hatta öyle olsaydı bu film 9 puanı bile alabilirdi fakat onun yerine dediğim gibi sıkıcı bir şekilde konuyu işlemişler ve izlerken insanın sıkılmasına sebep olmuşlar. Şu an 3 saatimin boşa gidişine üzülüyorum. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
66jdMar 26, 2017
Wasn't too sure what to expect from this film.
However I wasn't disappointed.
The special effects and story are extremely watchable.
The t-rex fight scene was memorable.
Top cinema offering. Big screen viewing required.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews