User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1275 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 30, 2012
    3
    The more I watch this movie, the crappier it gets. Why? Because half of it is just screaming.. The acting was crap for the most part, I hate to **** talk Peter Jackson, but sorry man, this one was good for its time, but it has died to me.
  2. Jul 3, 2011
    0
    This is my least favorite movie of all time.
    In his attempt to make King Kong more like Lord of the Rings, Jackson has made an epic exposition of unbelievable events and stupidity. This movie is at least 1 hour too long and every action scene is less plausible than the last, removing all tension and immersion. There are no likable protagonists, villains or heroes and the plot and
    This is my least favorite movie of all time.
    In his attempt to make King Kong more like Lord of the Rings, Jackson has made an epic exposition of unbelievable events and stupidity. This movie is at least 1 hour too long and every action scene is less plausible than the last, removing all tension and immersion. There are no likable protagonists, villains or heroes and the plot and character development are more childish than an episode of Sponge Bob.
    I truly hate this pile of crap that King Kong himself could not excrete from his massive anus.
    Expand
  3. EricK.
    May 11, 2008
    0
    A disgrace to the original, which is one of the greatest films of all time.
  4. FrancoN.
    Oct 24, 2007
    3
    Like the big ape himself, this movie was bloated and flabby. They could have at least cut 45 minutes out of it.
  5. BrendanD.
    Apr 20, 2007
    0
    The "King Kong" with Faye Wray was a horrible, schlocky story that, quite frankly, demeaned everyone who worked on it, Wray included. The "King Kong" with Jeff Daniels suffered from its own epic delusions, finally crumbling under the weight of a horrible direction. But Peter Jackson's take on "King Kong" is the worst version of the most overrated story of all time. First of all, The "King Kong" with Faye Wray was a horrible, schlocky story that, quite frankly, demeaned everyone who worked on it, Wray included. The "King Kong" with Jeff Daniels suffered from its own epic delusions, finally crumbling under the weight of a horrible direction. But Peter Jackson's take on "King Kong" is the worst version of the most overrated story of all time. First of all, Jackson tries to approach this version with the same eye that Steven Spielberg used in the first hour or so of "Jurassic Park." At this point, however, you can't do that, because "Jurassic Park" did that awe-inspiring animated-animals moment better than any movie before or since -- it still sends a shiver up my spine when I watch the brontosaur jump up to grab the top leaves on the trees. There is no "wow" moment in Jackson's "King Kong" because Jackson tries to cram "wow" moments in every five or six minutes, completely obliterating their impact. Now, I've heard from both critics and members of my own family that the ape was beautifully animated. I say now what I said to them: WHAT?!? Through the entire damned movie, all I could think was, "Wow, that ape doesn't look real at all; it looks like a character from an XBOX-360 game." The world in which Kong lives is likewise hokey, looking like nothing but lame backdrops excised from "Return of the King" (easily the worst and most pretentious of the "Lord of the Rings" movies). Then there's the writing. The story of "Kong" is bad enough, but humanizing the animal only makes it worse. Let's make one thing clear: Kong is a giant ape who appears to have marked intelligence and emotion. But he is still an ape! A friend once told me that this is a stupid reason to dislike the film, but frankly, I don't know how anyone could put the obvious bestial implications out of his or her mind. To be fair, the movie never even comes close to touching the bestiality subject; but the fact that there's even a hint that Naomi Watts's character might be feeling something for the ape is a little bit nausea-inducing. If there bond between Watts and the ape had been more a mother-son kind of relationship, the film might've worked better; but as it stands, it straddles the love relationship without fully dedicating itself one way or the other whilst hinting at the obviously disturbing prospect of an affair between the two. Meanwhile, the script itself is horrendous. There is not one good piece of dialogue throughout the entire film. I'm not sure if Jackson allowed a herd of rabid, mentally-challenged Venusian cows to write it, or if he got so wrapped up in chase scenes and third-rate "Jurassic Park" tyrannosaur knock-offs that he forgot that what's being said is important, but either way, not even Jack Black can save some of the dumbest lines ever uttered in cinematic history. ...Which brings me to my next point: The acting was atrocious. I have to disagree with those who have been pseudo-apologists for Jack Black, Naomi Watts, and Andy Serkis. Each of the three has done brilliant work in the past, but "Kong" is not something they should put on their resumes. Black spends the entire movie looking lost, and Serkis, who deserved a million awards for the Gollum-schizophrenia scene in "The Two Towers," does not make the big ape any more realistic. Even Watts, who at least attempts to bring something to the table, ends up crumbling under the weight of an overwrought, underdeveloped, underwritten script, and her performance suffers precisely because of it. Then there's Peter Jackson. After "The Two Towers," which I still believe was his crowning achievement as a director, I was willing to forgive the tedious final hour of "Return of the King," especially because the final two scenes were so emotionally powerful. "King Kong," however, is a directorial mess. He switches camera angles at all the wrong times, and he doesn't focus on what he should when he should. For example, the penultimate scene, the famous one in which Kong is assaulted by mighty fighter jets, gets lost in its own action; rather than using the beautiful backdrop of New York City as its focal point, it uses Kong, and Watts gets lost. This is no good, especially when the skyline of New York is dolled up to look like something out of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow." And here's another problem: the scale of everything changes when Kong gets to New York City. Kong was easily the largest thing on Skull Island; yet he is all-of-a-sudden minuscule when he climbs up the Empire State Building. This scene actually worked in previous incarnations of "Kong" because the ape wasn't meant to look too real, giving the (admittedly dumb) story a kind of fairy-tale feel to it. Here, however, Jackson has made a lot of attempts to show Kong's fur waving in the wind, his eyes twitching and blinking like a human's, his mouth occasionally twisting up into a man-like smile. You can't have it both ways! The ape has more distinct mannerisms than any Kong before it, and yet the Empire State Building looks like it could reach the Cloud City from "The Empire Strikes Back." Finally, as many have pointed out, there's the running time. Yes, about a good hour could've been trimmed off the movie and still gotten Jackson's point across, potentially better. But the first forty-five minutes are a snore, too, even though there's lots of plot happening; likewise, the return to New York City, before Kong shows up, is a snoozer, although it contains the entire setup for the Grand Finale. And that's not even counting the hour and a half (or so) Jackson spends on all the different weirdo Skull Island creatures. The point is, the movie plods along rather than meanders; and the action sequences, far from advancing the plot, make the story come to an absolute stand-still in favor of bang-bang-bang action. Honestly, I cannot fathom what possessed critics (or anyone else) to recommend this film. It is one of the most pretentious, boring, stupid movies ever made, and Jackson ought to issue a bigger apology for this than George Lucas needs to for "The Phantom Menace." We live in a digital age, which could've given Jackson the chance to bring something new to the Kong mythos. Instead, he simply rehashes what's already done (and actually kind of dumbs it down), crafting a movie that might've looked good in 1933, but that now just makes me want to throw popcorn at the screen and sit there for another three hours demanding that Jackson compensate me for the time spent watching this awful mess. Expand
  6. MattY.
    Feb 11, 2007
    3
    The most amazing thing about King Kong is its consistency. This film delivers something genuinely idiotic every 10-15 seconds. After 3 hours of horrible dialogue, flat stock characers, and implausible action scenes, my throat was sore from scoffing. Generally, I would not waste my time railing about a Hollywood action movie.. but the amount of MONEY dumped into this movie makes the result The most amazing thing about King Kong is its consistency. This film delivers something genuinely idiotic every 10-15 seconds. After 3 hours of horrible dialogue, flat stock characers, and implausible action scenes, my throat was sore from scoffing. Generally, I would not waste my time railing about a Hollywood action movie.. but the amount of MONEY dumped into this movie makes the result more profane than the typical big-budget drivel. Man, you could change the world with $300,000,000... or you could make a few bucks and lower the worlds collective IQ.. Great choice Peter. Expand
  7. DiegoF.
    Jan 18, 2007
    1
    I'm surprised about the great rating this movie has been given! It's painful to watch it! I couldn't finish the movie because it bored me so much! The only good aspects would be the special effects which you can always tell if they are computer graphics or miniatures. The first hour of the movie is alright but once the monkey appears it's just bullshit! The fight of I'm surprised about the great rating this movie has been given! It's painful to watch it! I couldn't finish the movie because it bored me so much! The only good aspects would be the special effects which you can always tell if they are computer graphics or miniatures. The first hour of the movie is alright but once the monkey appears it's just bullshit! The fight of Kong with the 3 T-rexes is so bad! The director forgot tha humans have bones. Kong kept throwing Ann into the air and grabbing her with his feet or hands. After the first grab a human would probably be dead! Maybe as a remake it's good, I don't know because I never saw the originall. As a movie it stinks! Expand
  8. Katherine
    Jul 28, 2006
    0
    Why did they make ANOTHER King Kong? I mean it has been made about 8 times, and everyone knows how it ends. Kong dies at the end. So it's not like you changed it so much. It ends the same. So why don't the directors of today just stop taking other peoples ideas and be original.
  9. sirgeorge
    May 8, 2006
    0
    I just saw movie on dvd and its by far the worst movie I've ever seen. did Peter look at the movie before he gave it to the studio? did anyone notice when they tried to capture kong the first time the path they would of tried to carry him through? what about how did he get to new york? the boat was too small for the crew! what about when kong escaped in new york? it was a thousand I just saw movie on dvd and its by far the worst movie I've ever seen. did Peter look at the movie before he gave it to the studio? did anyone notice when they tried to capture kong the first time the path they would of tried to carry him through? what about how did he get to new york? the boat was too small for the crew! what about when kong escaped in new york? it was a thousand cabs in the street then he sees the girl and everything and everyone dissapears at one time! and to top it off, he plays on the ice in new york city. WOW! PETER, WATCH THE MOVIE BEFORE YOU SEND IT IN! Expand
  10. DaleW.
    Apr 11, 2006
    3
    What a disappointment - 30 minutes just to get on the boat, and an hour before Kong first appears - and special effects that were surpassed by Jurassic Park well over a decade ago. Peter Jackson owes me three hours of my life back.
  11. 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!
  12. 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.
  13. SEvans
    Mar 31, 2006
    3
    I'm giving Kong a 3 for wasting 3 hours of my time. Brutal.
  14. 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
  15. DavidD.
    Feb 20, 2006
    1
    Gorilla animation fine, tho out of scale most of the time,.Way too long and needlessly gory - bad for kids.
  16. HerschelW.
    Feb 6, 2006
    0
    This movie was terrible. A waste of time and money. The screenplay was idiotic. The acting was even worse with Jack Black totally miscast. He is one dimensional and did not fit the role. CGI was okay but not anything spectacular. Adrian Brody did not fit as the hero. Jackson really made an iferrior film that is way too long. The depression had nothing to do with the original Kong and was This movie was terrible. A waste of time and money. The screenplay was idiotic. The acting was even worse with Jack Black totally miscast. He is one dimensional and did not fit the role. CGI was okay but not anything spectacular. Adrian Brody did not fit as the hero. Jackson really made an iferrior film that is way too long. The depression had nothing to do with the original Kong and was just wasted filler. The Skull Island action scenes were awful and made no sense. Mutant bugs? C'mon give me a break. Where did the natives disappear too and how did their great Wall protect them? Ridiculous plot. Just a poor remake of Jurassic Park. Avoid. Expand
  17. Joe
    Feb 5, 2006
    1
    If you like brainless effects movies you will appreciate the technical qualitiies and the wierd out of this world fantasy overgrown insects that make sporadic appearances in this waste of time remake. Otherwise, don't spend your money on dreck!
  18. Justin
    Jan 30, 2006
    0
    First 20 minutes were entertaining. The subsequent 2,450 truthfully made me long for the most painful and lengthy suicide imaginable. Any reputable reviewer listed above should be ashamed of themselves for giving this thing any form of praise (Onion AV club, I'm particularly disapointed!). Having $200 million and a vivid imagination for creating mutant bugs does not equal a good First 20 minutes were entertaining. The subsequent 2,450 truthfully made me long for the most painful and lengthy suicide imaginable. Any reputable reviewer listed above should be ashamed of themselves for giving this thing any form of praise (Onion AV club, I'm particularly disapointed!). Having $200 million and a vivid imagination for creating mutant bugs does not equal a good film, please remember that when some asshole decides to remake Godzilla...oh wait, they did that. Expand
  19. Ironik
    Jan 21, 2006
    0
    Disaster. How could Jackson make such a silly film. It is nice that he can play with a computer but that does not make a good movie.
  20. EmilC.
    Jan 19, 2006
    1
    First thing is that movie is tooo long.There is 1h10min till you even see King Kong and till then it is dull movie.After King Kong jumps in things doesnt get better.Then it mixes Jurrasic Park with Lord of the Rings monsters and spiders.The fights are stupid , acting is criminaly bad and I think that Peter Jackson had a fame struck to his had so he directed this bad film.Last sad the old First thing is that movie is tooo long.There is 1h10min till you even see King Kong and till then it is dull movie.After King Kong jumps in things doesnt get better.Then it mixes Jurrasic Park with Lord of the Rings monsters and spiders.The fights are stupid , acting is criminaly bad and I think that Peter Jackson had a fame struck to his had so he directed this bad film.Last sad the old and original King Kong was at least 10000 better and some legendary movies like that one should never be remaked. Expand
  21. Dracula
    Jan 18, 2006
    0
    Why couldn't they have had Bella Lugosi swoop in on top of the Empire State Buiding bite Naomi Watts in the neck, swat Adrian Brody off the buiding and then grab Kong and fly him back to Skull Island? Sounds ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous than the crap Peter Jackson fed us with this tedious bore of a turkey. Dracula and the Wolfman v. King Kong. Frankenstein can take on the Why couldn't they have had Bella Lugosi swoop in on top of the Empire State Buiding bite Naomi Watts in the neck, swat Adrian Brody off the buiding and then grab Kong and fly him back to Skull Island? Sounds ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous than the crap Peter Jackson fed us with this tedious bore of a turkey. Dracula and the Wolfman v. King Kong. Frankenstein can take on the winner. Yuk! Expand
  22. TheWhiskeyMan
    Jan 18, 2006
    2
    Great Special effects but thats about it. The movie takes a long time to start rolling with some needless footage about the Great Depression that lends nothing to the King Kong story except take up time and space. When they finally get to King Kong's lair there is some very improbable events. After a while it becomes totally predictable like in the original Star Trek Days where you Great Special effects but thats about it. The movie takes a long time to start rolling with some needless footage about the Great Depression that lends nothing to the King Kong story except take up time and space. When they finally get to King Kong's lair there is some very improbable events. After a while it becomes totally predictable like in the original Star Trek Days where you can tell by the uniform who is going to buy the farm? By the time the movie finally gets us back to NYC the film has lost all its steam. I was looking at my watch hoping, praying for it to end as there was no suspense and it just fell apart. The rave reviews are certainly not deserving unless you are an adolescent unfamiliar with the story. If you want to see a great movie see the 1933 original. It is two hours shorter and ten times better. Peter Jackson did not use his 200M wisely on that you can be certain. Expand
  23. ChrisC.
    Jan 16, 2006
    2
    Did I see the same movie? What a bloated, self-indulgent, clumsy pile of...well...you get the idea. Laughable dialog. Shots and plots devices stolen from LOTR and Jurassic Park. The relationship between Watts and the monkey was moving, but lost in three hours of leaden cliche.
  24. ChristineP.
    Jan 14, 2006
    3
    King Kong, more like King Long! To drawn out and takes too long to get to the point. A lot of stuff should have been edited out. I was happy when it was over so I could leave!
  25. LeeG.
    Jan 13, 2006
    1
    Way too long, cheesy, bad dialogue, and the special effects for the most part weren't great. the scene with kong fighting the dinosuars in the trees was the only good part. other than that there's no need to watch this. the ice dancing scene at the end was embarrassing.
  26. GaborA.
    Jan 13, 2006
    3
    While other good fantasy epics build up to one climactic moment King Kong nails you with a twenty million dollar sequence in the fist third. But the movie has so much left to go so it tries to out do itself over and over. Soon we're not watchin fantasy, but over the top hollywood preposterousness. So when the amusement ride tries to slow donw to get some emotional scenes out of the While other good fantasy epics build up to one climactic moment King Kong nails you with a twenty million dollar sequence in the fist third. But the movie has so much left to go so it tries to out do itself over and over. Soon we're not watchin fantasy, but over the top hollywood preposterousness. So when the amusement ride tries to slow donw to get some emotional scenes out of the way instead of feeling genuine they also feel ridiculous. What I'm trying to say is that it doesnt work. At all. Expand
  27. Trudy
    Jan 13, 2006
    1
    Other than the excellent CGI done without a script to go with it, the movie just falls off a cliff and dies. Simply awful.
  28. Durago
    Jan 12, 2006
    1
    Tried very hard to like it. Sorry, just terrible as Jackson detracted from the original story with implausible writing. His choice of actors with the exception of Naomi Watts was awful. Much of the special effects should have been deleted in the editing process as the movie was too long. The CGI was good but when combined with the poor dialogue did not create any suspense but rather we Tried very hard to like it. Sorry, just terrible as Jackson detracted from the original story with implausible writing. His choice of actors with the exception of Naomi Watts was awful. Much of the special effects should have been deleted in the editing process as the movie was too long. The CGI was good but when combined with the poor dialogue did not create any suspense but rather we kept waiting for the Big Climatic Dive that we knew was coming. With all the money he spent Jackson should have realized that his version was over the top and obtained some help. Instead, this is an amateur production. In less than a month this hyped up blockbuster event has fizzled to a crawl. Word of mouth will doom recouping the 200M invested. At best the studio will only break even as GROSS sales of 150M to date is extremely disappointing. Just a terrible effort by an otherwise talented Mr. Jackson. Let's hope he learned from his mistake? Expand
  29. TrainerFred
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    Peter Jackson couldn't train a mouse to eat cheese after watching this garbage. Over three hours long and about three hours should have been left on the cutting room floor. Garbage in is garbage out. Awful.
  30. RalphieBoy
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    King Krap is more like it!
  31. GoffyA.
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    How bad can a movie be? In two words: KING KONG.
  32. Numby
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    So Sly it was made with intelligence? It's quite obvious that you and the others that loved this crapola have no command of the Queen's English. This is nothing more than an elaborate video pinball machine with flashing lights and bells and whistles. It has no intelligent dialogue, impossible to believe action scenes that are comical and only appeal to juveniles with an IQ of So Sly it was made with intelligence? It's quite obvious that you and the others that loved this crapola have no command of the Queen's English. This is nothing more than an elaborate video pinball machine with flashing lights and bells and whistles. It has no intelligent dialogue, impossible to believe action scenes that are comical and only appeal to juveniles with an IQ of less than 85. Most of this trailer trash belonged on the cutting room floor as it is way too long, but to people like Sly this was one hell of a movie. All I can say is Sly I am glad that you enjoyed it. Have you tried a kalaidescope because the pretty colors can do the same for you for less than the cost of a ticket? Kong is ridiculous with horrible directing and wooden stiff acting. Peter Jackson should be ashamed. Expand
  33. Horace
    Jan 10, 2006
    0
    Awful and laughable. A waste of my time.
  34. perryb
    Jan 10, 2006
    3
    I guess that if you give an infinite number of nerds an infinite number of computer graphics workstations then this is the best that can be hoped for - a film that only a fan boy can love.
  35. Queenie
    Jan 9, 2006
    0
    K = Krapola I = Idiotic N = Nonsensical G = Grating K = Kindergarden O = Obnoxious N = Numbing G = Garbage.
  36. MattiÄ.
    Jan 9, 2006
    3
    This was worse than I thought. The trip in the Skull Iland was very good part of the movie. But all other things were so trash.
  37. DrakeR.
    Jan 9, 2006
    1
    Quite possibly the biggest bomb next to War Of The Worlds this past year. Peter Jackson should have left about an hour and a half of this film on the cutting room floor. It is an amateur production with laughable action scenes that are ridiculous. About the only one this trash appeals to is juveniles with attention spans of a gnat. Avoid at all costs. No wonder word of mouth caused it to Quite possibly the biggest bomb next to War Of The Worlds this past year. Peter Jackson should have left about an hour and a half of this film on the cutting room floor. It is an amateur production with laughable action scenes that are ridiculous. About the only one this trash appeals to is juveniles with attention spans of a gnat. Avoid at all costs. No wonder word of mouth caused it to drop out of Number One at the Box Office after only 2 weeks. Bad acting, directing and no dialogue. Other than that and being way tooooo long it was wonderful. Expand
  38. CongoGongo
    Jan 9, 2006
    0
    If this movie was on the Gong Show it would be booed off the stage. Just a total joke with bad directing by an otherwise overrated in love with himself Peter Jackson. Jack Black needs to find another career. Preposterous.
  39. Hassan
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Horrendous and a total waste of 200m. This was a joke. The audience started walking out in the middle. Bad script, bad actoring, and awful directing. Jackson is one trick wonder.
  40. Alice
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Most of this film belongs on the floor after being edited. The writing is awful and the story convoluted. Contrary to what others have said, this version of Kong loosely follows the original. The dialogue and the action scenes make no sense. The conflicts on Skull Island are illogical and even if we want to suspend all belief it still is comical in nature. About the only think this flick Most of this film belongs on the floor after being edited. The writing is awful and the story convoluted. Contrary to what others have said, this version of Kong loosely follows the original. The dialogue and the action scenes make no sense. The conflicts on Skull Island are illogical and even if we want to suspend all belief it still is comical in nature. About the only think this flick is good for is a video game with its flashing lights and bells. Jackson bombed. Expand
  41. HoobyDooby
    Jan 8, 2006
    2
    This movie had me completely bored. First off: there's no likeable characters. The Jack Black character gives you the impression that he's insane, like in the scenes where they're running from dinosaurs and he's just sitting their filming it. You don't feel much affection for Kong (unlike the original). He doesn't show that much emotion. And the Naomi Watts This movie had me completely bored. First off: there's no likeable characters. The Jack Black character gives you the impression that he's insane, like in the scenes where they're running from dinosaurs and he's just sitting their filming it. You don't feel much affection for Kong (unlike the original). He doesn't show that much emotion. And the Naomi Watts character comes off as insane, as she professes to everyone that she LOVES the monkey. When you are in LOVE with a thousand-pound gorilla, people are not going to like your character. So, basically, what we got here is no likeably characters in a story we've heard thousands of times before. If it wasn't for the $200 million is special effects, I would give this a zero. Expand
  42. Dickie
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Jackson goes wild with his $200M box of crayons and crapola is the result. He miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. His first hour is boring and unncecessary. Then when we get to Jurassic Park the man loses all credibility with laughable writing, lack of editing, and poor directing. Half of this movie should have been omitted and perhaps with someone having some talent we could have had Jackson goes wild with his $200M box of crayons and crapola is the result. He miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. His first hour is boring and unncecessary. Then when we get to Jurassic Park the man loses all credibility with laughable writing, lack of editing, and poor directing. Half of this movie should have been omitted and perhaps with someone having some talent we could have had meaningful dialogue? But instead we get a mishmosh with Jackson playing with his CGI to his hearts content in producing a video game that only a ten year old with a lobotomized brain could love? In reading the reviews did some of you juvenile posters actually say this was the best movie ever? The fact that with all the PR Kong dropped from number one at the Box Office in less than 2 weeks says all that has to be said. This is a very poor effort by Jackson on the recent order of George Lucas. The only thing missing from this disaster was casting Tom Cruise. Jack Black and Tom Cruise in War of The Worlds. Two no-talents in blockbusters in the same year. Ugly! Expand
  43. Howard
    Jan 6, 2006
    2
    Special Effects were good not great. As for the rest of the flick it was just too awful to be beleived. I love a good fantasy story as much as the next person but the script, the plot holes, the poor choice in casting and the unediting was simply terrible. The directing and meaningful dialogue were nonexistant. All in all if this was made for TV channels would be switching stations in Special Effects were good not great. As for the rest of the flick it was just too awful to be beleived. I love a good fantasy story as much as the next person but the script, the plot holes, the poor choice in casting and the unediting was simply terrible. The directing and meaningful dialogue were nonexistant. All in all if this was made for TV channels would be switching stations in about 20 minutes. Terrible effort by an otherwise talented Mr. Jackson. Expand
  44. Jeff
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    Gratuitous, soulless, shallow and stupid. This isn't a movie: it's a video game.
  45. TonyMontana
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    If a fence-sitter was to base whether or not he was going to see this film based on the user comments here, then he would definitely have to side with those reviewers who give KING KONG a big, fat ZERO. With few exceptions, the negative posters are generally articulate, but the posters who rate it a 10 out of 10 'masterpiece' come across as children or adults of severely limitedIf a fence-sitter was to base whether or not he was going to see this film based on the user comments here, then he would definitely have to side with those reviewers who give KING KONG a big, fat ZERO. With few exceptions, the negative posters are generally articulate, but the posters who rate it a 10 out of 10 'masterpiece' come across as children or adults of severely limited cranial activity. I particularly LMAO at the poster who gave it a 10 and called Peter Jackson a 'genious autuere". Says it all really... Expand
  46. Zachary
    Jan 5, 2006
    2
    Simply Disappointing. High on quantitiy, low on quality. Unbearable long and boring, this movie has no idea what direction it is going in. The begining scenes of New York are magnificent, but in this film the "special effects" take precedent over the plot. The love story isn't believable, and by the end of the movie the audience member is left with too many uncertanties. This movie Simply Disappointing. High on quantitiy, low on quality. Unbearable long and boring, this movie has no idea what direction it is going in. The begining scenes of New York are magnificent, but in this film the "special effects" take precedent over the plot. The love story isn't believable, and by the end of the movie the audience member is left with too many uncertanties. This movie is not memeroble, thought provoking or worthwhile, a three hour cinema bore. Expand
  47. FedUp
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    When are these bought and paid for professional critics have to answer for their actions? I work hard for my money. I don't want to throw it away on absolutely worthless junk. There is no point rehashing what others have said about this trash. The acting, casting, directing and script were sorely lacking. I walked out with several others after the Jurassic Park adventure ride. It was When are these bought and paid for professional critics have to answer for their actions? I work hard for my money. I don't want to throw it away on absolutely worthless junk. There is no point rehashing what others have said about this trash. The acting, casting, directing and script were sorely lacking. I walked out with several others after the Jurassic Park adventure ride. It was as preposterous as the first hour that was crude and just plain boring. There are no words to ever express my outrage that I was played for a sucker by a critic that is paid to report the truth. If any critic wants to take me on one on one point by point be my guest. To give this film a score next to perfect means that the critic had to (A) have been bought and paid for or (B) had a lobotomy and is grossly unable to perform the duties for the paper that hired him or her. Be warned this is a juvenile film of the lowest order. Peter Jackson is a disgrace. Expand
  48. Jared
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    I have only one question for Peter Jackson. Your version of King Kong was so childish where was Godzilla and Mothra? That's all that was missing from that ridiculous implausable Skull Island where Jackson lost all credibility. His remake of King Kong and Jurassic Park was just a farce. There was the Big APE holding Naomi in one hand while fighting three T-Rex's at the same time. I have only one question for Peter Jackson. Your version of King Kong was so childish where was Godzilla and Mothra? That's all that was missing from that ridiculous implausable Skull Island where Jackson lost all credibility. His remake of King Kong and Jurassic Park was just a farce. There was the Big APE holding Naomi in one hand while fighting three T-Rex's at the same time. Preposterous. Then when the Captain arrived swinging on a vine machine gunning spiders without any of the bullets penetrating Adrian Brody and Jack Black well that was just too much. But when the Bats attacked King Kong with two humans standing and watching without being attacked with Adrian catching a BAT by the tail and gently hang gliding Naomi and him down the mountain, well, at that point the audience started laughing. As for getting Kong back to NY without destroying the boat let's not even go there. The NY debacle could not come fast enough as it was a joke. Where was that damn BAT when Kong needed him atop the Empire State Buidling? Preposterous movie without any suspense, believablity, acting or directing. Expand
  49. ManF.
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    Wow, a lot of people here seem to have never gone to a movie before. What else could explain the 10's this turd is receiving other than to say that these people were amazed by the terrible CGI because they've never experienced them before, thought the dialogue and the love between Kong and Watts was real and incredible because they've never seen a Disney kid's movie Wow, a lot of people here seem to have never gone to a movie before. What else could explain the 10's this turd is receiving other than to say that these people were amazed by the terrible CGI because they've never experienced them before, thought the dialogue and the love between Kong and Watts was real and incredible because they've never seen a Disney kid's movie (which will most likely have dialogue and emotions far realer than anything here), and most of all thought this was worth their time? At Least Armageddon was about half an hour shorter than this. Peter Jackson is a terrible, overrated hack and describing a director as "a child in a man's body" should really stop being considered a compliment. Expand
  50. DarylS.
    Jan 4, 2006
    1
    Universal acclaim? Oh spare me. Enough with the spiders and lobsters and tyrannosauri rex. That was all a distraction, and I sat there waiting for them to GET ON WITH THE STORY! Oh truly, any movie that ends with "It was beauty the killed the beast" (at which point the entire cinema groaned). Script had no bearing on this movie. I went with no expectations, and left wondering what had Universal acclaim? Oh spare me. Enough with the spiders and lobsters and tyrannosauri rex. That was all a distraction, and I sat there waiting for them to GET ON WITH THE STORY! Oh truly, any movie that ends with "It was beauty the killed the beast" (at which point the entire cinema groaned). Script had no bearing on this movie. I went with no expectations, and left wondering what had happened. And I got a sore back to boot, after three hours sitting there wanting wanting wanting it to get better. But it just didn't. CGI is all well and good; but without a script, it's just all bells and whistles. Very disappointing. Expand
  51. Moose
    Jan 4, 2006
    1
    LOL, Weldon. I couldn't have said it better myself. This one's for the kiddies.
  52. SueM
    Jan 4, 2006
    3
    Eh.
  53. MichaelC
    Jan 4, 2006
    3
    The first part of the movie is the strongest. After that your oversized pocorn finds the way to your throat. Every action scene is like the punch in your stomach (not in a good way).
  54. Bill
    Jan 4, 2006
    1
    This was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was terrible and the dialogue was sappy. If not for the special effects, it could easily be ranked as one of the worst movies of all time. The fact that it is 3.5 hours, when it should have been 90 minutes, puts it in a class all by itself.
  55. RockyL.
    Jan 4, 2006
    1
    Paul F. said it best when he said the overload of special effects finally made him numb to the experience. And that is part of the problem. Peter Jackson got so excited with his new toys that he forgot to leave some of the CGI on the cutting room floor. The editing was awful. As for the acting, Naomi Watts is certainly easy on the eyes but did anyone see any chemistry with Adrian Brody. I Paul F. said it best when he said the overload of special effects finally made him numb to the experience. And that is part of the problem. Peter Jackson got so excited with his new toys that he forgot to leave some of the CGI on the cutting room floor. The editing was awful. As for the acting, Naomi Watts is certainly easy on the eyes but did anyone see any chemistry with Adrian Brody. I for one did not. As for Jack Black he was simply miscast. He is one dimensional and should have never been given the role. As for the script, Peter Jackson took the basic concept but by the time we get to Skull Island with the illogical action scenes all credibility is lost. By the time we get back to NYC who really cares? The supsense is gone as we all know the big ape is going to climb up the Empire State Building to take his eventual swan dive for hopefully the third and final time. As a judge as he dives into the pool I heard the audience gasp 1.0, 1.5, 0.2, 0.5 and thus my 1 rating. The dialogue was awful, the writing terrible, the length of the movie about an hour too long, and the acting and directing abysmal. Other than that this was the BEST movie I have ever seen. Now I feel like one of these ten year olds who say this should win BEST PICTURE of THE YEAR? Give me a break. Expand
  56. DunceCap
    Jan 3, 2006
    0
    Fred you don't have an honest opinon. You sound as if you are ten years old so I will cut you some slack. But opinions are like pie holes as everyone has one including me. For my money this movie was the pits. Peter Jackson is definitely in need of some professional counseling if this is the best he can do with a budget of two hundred million dollars. The acting was bad. The Fred you don't have an honest opinon. You sound as if you are ten years old so I will cut you some slack. But opinions are like pie holes as everyone has one including me. For my money this movie was the pits. Peter Jackson is definitely in need of some professional counseling if this is the best he can do with a budget of two hundred million dollars. The acting was bad. The directing even worse. And as for the dialogue what little there was well let's just say it was poor. The CGI was good in spots and horrid in others. Over all this movie was a total bomb. A turkey. Thanksgiving rather than Christmas would have been more appropriate to present this lame turkey with all the stuffing. Way toooo long and boring. Expand
  57. Sidiot
    Jan 3, 2006
    0
    A movie only an idiot can love? What was to like? The unoriginal story; the terrible acting, a lame script with more holes than swiss cheese; or the editing that never took place? Peter Jackson is in love with himself as that's obvious. Boring and ludicrous.
  58. AndyP.
    Jan 3, 2006
    1
    I guess Charles you have to be about 12 years old or else you would not have written the ridiculous review in which you gave this trash a perfect ten? You're excused. Ann loved Kong the way we love our dogs. After all he saved her life on more than one occassion, so wouldn't you too? So what's your point? Did she protest to anyone about bringing him back to NY to face his I guess Charles you have to be about 12 years old or else you would not have written the ridiculous review in which you gave this trash a perfect ten? You're excused. Ann loved Kong the way we love our dogs. After all he saved her life on more than one occassion, so wouldn't you too? So what's your point? Did she protest to anyone about bringing him back to NY to face his certain death? NO! Why? Because then it wouldn't be the rip off of the 19311 movie which was great. The acting with all due respect was wooden and superficial. There was no chemistry between Naomi and Adrian. Jack Black better stick to the School Of Rock as he was miscast here. The directing was terrible and the script was lame. Unless you care to explain away all of the inconsistencies in the story? Not a single one of you has attempted to do that because you know it would be impossible to do. The special effects were what they are but was there any new idea seen? No. This was just a video game for youngsters with ADD. If it entertained you that's great. Now the proof that this movie is a turkey is that after two weeks it has lost its number one ranking at the box office. This is from a movie that the critics who were bought and paid for raved about. Obviously word of mouth that this is an awful piece of work has spread on the street. How can this film be out of number one in less than three weeks? And it was replaced by a cartoon that has been out longer than this has. Peter Jackson got a free pass and has now joined George Lucas as a one dimensional character himself. All in all King Kong was terrible and is definitely not worth the price of admission. Avoid. Expand
  59. WeldonN.
    Jan 2, 2006
    0
    Probably great for ages 6-12. If you are 13 or over, don't go because your snoring will probably disturb the kids.
  60. Allen
    Jan 2, 2006
    0
    Dennis you said anyone who gives this film a rating lower than a 5 is not to be taken seriously? Likewise your rating is preposterous. There was no dialogue in this tedious film. The acting was inept and the directing even worse. I have seen better special effects on video games. As for the story it is not original as it is a remake of a remake. There was no suspense as everyone knows the Dennis you said anyone who gives this film a rating lower than a 5 is not to be taken seriously? Likewise your rating is preposterous. There was no dialogue in this tedious film. The acting was inept and the directing even worse. I have seen better special effects on video games. As for the story it is not original as it is a remake of a remake. There was no suspense as everyone knows the ending. As for the storyline what Jackson did was a disgrace. He robbed other movies and tried to do one better. The Skull Island scene was preposterous. There were more plot holes than Carter has little liver pills. Basically what you are advocating is checking your brains in at the door. The audience I saw it with was booing and screaming Refund when they were not walking out. This terrible version of Kong was worse than the 1976 remake and I for one did not think that was possible. Jack Black is one dimensional and was awful as well as being miscast. The movie was about 2 hours too long and the boring first hour set up nothing. Can anyone tell us how the Big Ape was transported on the little broken down boat back to NYC. After all he couldn't fit down into the hull, was too big for the cages and how did they keep him locked up without destroying the boat? This is the same Kong who destroyed NY on cue without doing so at the rehersals for the big Broadway spectacular in 1933 Depression NY. By the way then how come everyone had a tuxedo on? And do people go out in the snow without a coat in a spring dress with high heels on? Please this movie is a disaster movie all right but for all the wrong reasons. A perfect 10? You're either dreaming or had a lobotomy? Expand
  61. Haden
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    This is an amateur production not worthy of your time nor money. This should have come out on April 1st. It's a joke.
  62. DavidR.
    Jan 1, 2006
    1
    This movie is an oppressive three hours of cinematic effects, and noise. Just further proof that Hollywood is not only lacking in originality, but is increasingly throwing computer generated effects at the hoi poloi. This is more proof that real art (in the movies) in Holloywood is dead. All we get anymore, so it seems, is noise and excitement. If you want real art, go and see live This movie is an oppressive three hours of cinematic effects, and noise. Just further proof that Hollywood is not only lacking in originality, but is increasingly throwing computer generated effects at the hoi poloi. This is more proof that real art (in the movies) in Holloywood is dead. All we get anymore, so it seems, is noise and excitement. If you want real art, go and see live theater. At least you can see some talent. Expand
  63. SybelzJ
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    What he said. Scandalously bad. All these 10/10's are further evidence that metacritic is full of corrupt publicists and PR companies doing what they do best, which is deceive the public. For shame.
  64. JembleC.
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Horrendous.
  65. Ted
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    What an absolute disaster...
  66. JillH.
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Recently, Ebert gave 0 stars to Wolf Creek because he found it dehumanizing that people would wish to see people cruelly killed. Yet in King Kong, a movie he and so many others hailed as a masterpiece, we are supposed to cheer for the killer, a monstrous ape that kills A LOT of innocent people in this 3 hour long snooze fest. Humanizing, indeed.
  67. Socrates
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Wow. I couldn't have asked for a worse New Years Eve party than going to to see this movie. It was long and boring as hell, and nothing felt connected; everything seemed like a short, stupid scene that had no relation to the next ("We're running from dinosaurs! Now we're shooting at King Kong!"). The CGI felt as weightless and lifeless as all CGI in almost every movie Wow. I couldn't have asked for a worse New Years Eve party than going to to see this movie. It was long and boring as hell, and nothing felt connected; everything seemed like a short, stupid scene that had no relation to the next ("We're running from dinosaurs! Now we're shooting at King Kong!"). The CGI felt as weightless and lifeless as all CGI in almost every movie I've seen does. Jackson shows just how truly literal and thoughtless he is with this film, for here he could have made any number of important statements regarding a slew of problems in the world. Instead, he opts to make a complete remake of the original film, complete with all the racial stereotypes of the time. Entertainment Weekly just said that Jackson is the new Spielberg, and since Spielberg isn't even done yet, I guess we can all be excited for twice as many overbloated, self serious and cranially incapacitated movies each year. Joy. Expand
  68. RichardE.
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was simply awful. The directing was some of the worst I have ever seen. And the dialogue was awful too and made no sense. Add to this the film being I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was simply awful. The directing was some of the worst I have ever seen. And the dialogue was awful too and made no sense. Add to this the film being about twice as long as it should and it all adds up to one big mess. The story of Beauty and the Beast has been told many times. Peter Jackson has not done anything worthy of two hundred million dollars of wasted money. This is as bad a film that I have seen in a long long time. The movie isn't even out two weeks and the theaters are half full. It is a disaster at the box office despite the hoopla by idiots who act as if this is an original idea. Expand
  69. Rickie
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Remember the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS? Well, KING KONG is AS BAD AS IT GETS! This was one long drawnout farce of a flick. Peter Jackson should be ashamed. No acting, no directing, no dialogue and just plain out STUPID!
  70. LeslieL.
    Dec 31, 2005
    0
    Its so ridiculous it is frightening. Obviously the critics are bought and paid for. The acting was attrocious, the directing even worse and the plot a total joke. If there was dialogue I must have missed it because I did start to nod off during the excruciating long first hour. By the time we get to Skull Island the movie turns into a comedy. Peter Jackson is a joke.
  71. AndyH.
    Dec 31, 2005
    0
    Tens? You people are giving this trashy movie a ten as in Gone With The Wind? You call this a perfect movie? If so there is a bridge I want to sell you? First off this movie is way over the top and too long. Secondly, it is boring and downright laughable. The dialogue is nonexistant. The acting is awful especially Jack Black. Adrian Brody simply in unbelievable as the love interest for Tens? You people are giving this trashy movie a ten as in Gone With The Wind? You call this a perfect movie? If so there is a bridge I want to sell you? First off this movie is way over the top and too long. Secondly, it is boring and downright laughable. The dialogue is nonexistant. The acting is awful especially Jack Black. Adrian Brody simply in unbelievable as the love interest for Ann Darrow. There is no chemistry. As for Skull Island it doesn't compute. The CGI is over the top. The writing is laughable. The native scene is racist pure and simple. They are canibals who worship Kong. Why? How did they build that giant wall without being eaten by all the other monsters that inhabit the Island. Perhaps in the sequel when Peter Jackson tells us what we saw was a dream that this will be explained right? Secondly, if Kong is the true master of all the monsters how come he is the only Ape on the island? Where are the others? How was he born? Where are his parents? His brothers? His sisters? His children? His mate? I guess he was in danger of becoming extinct because of Jack Black types taking him to other major cities to destroy them? Anyway the circus stunts were great with the same reel of the dinasaur stampede repeated three times. Then Kong fights 3 T-Rexs with one hand while holding Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) in the other. Yeah right? And didn't you love how the Captain suddenly became an action hero shooting spiders with one hand while swinging on the vine with the other. I tell you this was something else. Then the damaged boat takes Kong back to NY. How did they get him on the boat? How did they keep him from jumping ship? Where did they keep him? Remember this was a little boat that was damaged on the rocks when it came to Skull Island? He couldn't fit through any doorway? He couldn't fit in one of those cages him being a 4 ton gorilla? What did they feed him? How come he didn't destroy the boat? They had no chains to hold him? Explain it to us? Then he comes to NY and destroys the City on cue. As for Naomi in a flimsy dress and high heels, well, after everything else I saw, why not in in the middle of winter without a coat. The only thing missing was one of those vampire bats flying by the Empire State Building and Kong grabbing hold like Adrian did and being flown back to Skull Island with the natives chanting Kong - Kong - Kong! By the way, the natives that worshipped Kong where did they disappear too when the Big Ape fell asleep? I guess Peter Jackson's budget ran out. And you idiots gave this movie a ten? I only wish Peter Jackson could have been eaten by one of his wormy creatures from the head down? This movie was a disgrace. And finally what does Circa NYC 1933 have to do with the remake of the remake of King Kong? Was it germain to the story of Kong? Absolutely Not! But Jackson decided since the original was shot in 1933 why not spend some more money on some useless trailer trash. This effort was ugly. Expand
  72. MallardD.
    Dec 30, 2005
    0
    This movie was hilarious for all the wrong reasons. It needs the Mystery Science Theater III treatment in the worst way. I burst out laughing when Kong sees Naomi Watts approaching him down a surprisingly deserted NYC street in the middle of winter wearing a flimsy dress and a halo of light behind her. Where is Servo when we need him? The ONE moment I was waiting for didn't even This movie was hilarious for all the wrong reasons. It needs the Mystery Science Theater III treatment in the worst way. I burst out laughing when Kong sees Naomi Watts approaching him down a surprisingly deserted NYC street in the middle of winter wearing a flimsy dress and a halo of light behind her. Where is Servo when we need him? The ONE moment I was waiting for didn't even happen: seeing Kong land on Joe Black as he hits the street after falling from the ESB. All in all a King Kong pile of crap. Expand
  73. ET
    Dec 30, 2005
    2
    This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the above, which is why it lasts 3 hours. This movie shows the worst of human nature, up close and personal, repeatedly, over, and over again. Peter Jackson This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the above, which is why it lasts 3 hours. This movie shows the worst of human nature, up close and personal, repeatedly, over, and over again. Peter Jackson seems to have a penchant for extended repetition. I can't rate it a '0' because I stayed the whole way through. It was reasonably well produced. Naomi Watts is easy on the eyes. If it had been tightened up a I could have seen rating it a 7 or 8. A *LOT*, I say. But we all know editing is the hardest part, and if people are going to see it anyway, why bother? Spoiler: In the end, Naomi loses the hairy flare-nosed chimp and ends up with the hairy flare-nosed chump. Ta-da. Expand
  74. Mike
    Dec 30, 2005
    1
    I started to like the movie for the first 30 mins, and then it became very very bad. The fighting between king kong and 3 trex was laughable. The acting is also very very bad, and this is very disappointing because in other films these actors are great!!! Can it be becasue of the bad directing? The only great thing about this movie are the special effects. nothing else.
  75. WarrenL.
    Dec 30, 2005
    0
    Somebody has lost their mind and I know it isn't me. This was one of the worst movies ever made. I know you loved it because of the special effects? Big deal. There is more to a movie than CGI. The first act over 70 minutes long is totally boring. Who cares about showing signs of the depression. How does that come into play in King Kong other than the original was made in 1933? Somebody has lost their mind and I know it isn't me. This was one of the worst movies ever made. I know you loved it because of the special effects? Big deal. There is more to a movie than CGI. The first act over 70 minutes long is totally boring. Who cares about showing signs of the depression. How does that come into play in King Kong other than the original was made in 1933? Secondly, Jack Black with his one dimensional stare was simply awful. After the first boring act is over with get to Skull Island aka Jurassic Park. Did I actually see natives in black paint? And the stampeding dinosaurs shown the same loop three different times. C'mon. Then for your entertainment pleasure watch as Kong fights not one, not two but three T-Rex's all at the same time. And if that wasn't enought the vampire bats attacking Kong in his lair but not our hero's was over the top. But then not to be outdone wasn't it a nice touch with the Captain swinging on a vine while shooting the spiders off of our hero's without one bullet even grazing them? And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to sleep. Can anyone explain how he did not drown or how they lifted him on the damged little tug boat that could? And if you want to believe that how did they feed him or contain him on his journey back to NYC? Do you want to tell me that they magically obtained steel chains that tied him to the damaged boat? Well, if that's not bad enough when he arrives in NYC they had to have rehearsals before the native dance number with the blonde, not Ann Darrow, sacrifice right? How come he never reacted that entire time. I guess he waited for opening night to destroy NYC? And if that wasn't enough, the ending in the winter with Ann without a coat in a light spring dress with high heels ascending up the ladder to the top of the tallest building in NYC was just the icing on the cake. Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. And by the way, where did the natives disappear to? Remember that they risked life and limb to kidnap Ann for Kong but somehow vanished when he got hit with a little teenie weenie bottle of chloroform. You people raving about this trailer trash of a movie are totally insane. You are desparately in need of some professional help. Expand
  76. GlennR.
    Dec 30, 2005
    1
    Simply put, 'King Kong' is a really bad movie. It's too long, it's poorly written, the dialog is awkward, there is no chemistry between the stars (with the exception of Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis), and it's miscast (it's clear that Jack Black was cast solely for his box office appeal, because he is not at all believable as a high-powered movie producer). Simply put, 'King Kong' is a really bad movie. It's too long, it's poorly written, the dialog is awkward, there is no chemistry between the stars (with the exception of Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis), and it's miscast (it's clear that Jack Black was cast solely for his box office appeal, because he is not at all believable as a high-powered movie producer). Many of the special effects looked no different to me than special effects in movies from the 70's -- or even the 30's for that matter -- so I'm not sure why we're supposed to be wowed by them. Many of the scenes were so drawn out and repetitive that I was actually bored. The subplots -- the romance and the coming of age story -- were listless and uninteresting. The only redeeming parts of the movie were the performances by the beautiful and talented Watts, who did a decent job making me think she actually cared about the ape, and by Serkis, who made the ape seem almost human at times. Other than that, I thought it was a complete waste of $9.75 and three hours. The ending is supposed to be sad, but instead I was mostly happy and relieved that it was over. Expand
  77. LarryS.
    Dec 29, 2005
    3
    Aww come on! Do we really need another remake. Another King Kong. Yikes what a stupid idea by the American movie industry. Here's an idea how about an original idea with some good writing that makes you think. Special effects were poorly done considering the technology available. Naomi Watts what were you thinking! Another non stop action movie with nothing to say. Ugggghhhh! A movie Aww come on! Do we really need another remake. Another King Kong. Yikes what a stupid idea by the American movie industry. Here's an idea how about an original idea with some good writing that makes you think. Special effects were poorly done considering the technology available. Naomi Watts what were you thinking! Another non stop action movie with nothing to say. Ugggghhhh! A movie for tweenies!!! Expand
  78. RichardD.
    Dec 29, 2005
    3
    It was not believable enough and too long.
  79. Jeremy
    Dec 28, 2005
    0
    Hated It. Way toooooooo looong.
  80. DannyD.
    Dec 28, 2005
    3
    Simply too much of a good thing. The original was able to tell the same story in under 2 hours. Peter Jackson should have slimmed down the movie instead of himself.
  81. david
    Dec 28, 2005
    1
    Everything i wanted to say was said by Steven N. Great review! Every one of those points were right on. There are movies you just have fun with and say "its just a movie". but the action scenes on this one was sooooo bad that i could not stand it.
  82. KeithL.
    Dec 27, 2005
    0
    I waited over 4years for this when I heard Peter jackson was going to make this movie and...wow. I can't put into words how over the top and bad King Kong was. 3 hrs of my life wasted. I'll never get it back. Don't believe the hype or the critics, the studio paid handsomely for those write ups no doubt because this a brainless farce that drags and lopes with no sense of I waited over 4years for this when I heard Peter jackson was going to make this movie and...wow. I can't put into words how over the top and bad King Kong was. 3 hrs of my life wasted. I'll never get it back. Don't believe the hype or the critics, the studio paid handsomely for those write ups no doubt because this a brainless farce that drags and lopes with no sense of grounding whatsoever. To make matters worse, it looks hastily prepared. The special effects aren't very special in many spots and, hey now, the story lags too. Bad, bad, bad, and it sucks too. Did I mention that we all hated it? This is as bad as the following: The Mummy, The Hulk, Batman & Robin, Godzilla 1998, and ANY of the Star Wars prequels (admittedly I have not seen Episode III--and don't need or want to). It actually makes Dino DeLaurentis' 1976 version look like pure genius. Peter Jackson, what have you done? Thank god it was $5 night. BTW: Funny story. I left to pee during the excruciating bug attack sequence and there were people in the hallway harassing theatre emplyees for their money back over this. One guy said, "you mean to tell me I have to sit in there for another hour and not get some kind of compensation?" I busted out laughing and expressed my sentiments. If I had to sit through it, WE ALL had to sit through it. Expand
  83. RichardG.
    Dec 27, 2005
    1
    Slow, bloated, excruciatingly long. Potentially great special effects, stretched out ad nauseum. Example: With distressed damsel clenched in one hand, Kong takes on a T. Rex with the other. The battle goes on and on... after five minutes another one jumps into the ring: wow, twice the thrill and suspense. The battle rages on for another five minutes, then -- omigod, can you believe it! --Slow, bloated, excruciatingly long. Potentially great special effects, stretched out ad nauseum. Example: With distressed damsel clenched in one hand, Kong takes on a T. Rex with the other. The battle goes on and on... after five minutes another one jumps into the ring: wow, twice the thrill and suspense. The battle rages on for another five minutes, then -- omigod, can you believe it! -- another T Rex joins the fray and we Expand
  84. Bosko
    Dec 27, 2005
    0
    I don't see why any critic would praise this film but pan (as they all did) Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" or the "Godzilla" remake. Those movies were more believeable than this one. This is the dumbest film of all time. There's not one character that didn't belong in a Hanna Babera cartoon.
  85. Freakster
    Dec 27, 2005
    0
    Peter Jackson is kidding if he thinks this is quality entertainment. People were laughing out loud and walking out in the middle. The casting was awful and the acting even worse. As for the dialogue I only wish I could criticize it but there wasn't any except for some imbosylic yaking by the horrendous Jack Black. This movie is a total disgrace. If you want to watch stupid moronic Peter Jackson is kidding if he thinks this is quality entertainment. People were laughing out loud and walking out in the middle. The casting was awful and the acting even worse. As for the dialogue I only wish I could criticize it but there wasn't any except for some imbosylic yaking by the horrendous Jack Black. This movie is a total disgrace. If you want to watch stupid moronic nonsense watch the video game. This movie is terrible. Expand
  86. DonN.
    Dec 27, 2005
    2
    This is one of the worst movies I have ever paid full admission for in my life. The movie is about 1.00-1.30 hrs too long. Most of the scenes are unrealistic and the scene transitions are disjointed at times(i.e. sedating King Kong on the island, but not showing how they got him on the boat and to NY). But my favorite unrealistic/stupid/sappy scene was this 25 ft gorilla who must weigh 10 This is one of the worst movies I have ever paid full admission for in my life. The movie is about 1.00-1.30 hrs too long. Most of the scenes are unrealistic and the scene transitions are disjointed at times(i.e. sedating King Kong on the island, but not showing how they got him on the boat and to NY). But my favorite unrealistic/stupid/sappy scene was this 25 ft gorilla who must weigh 10 tons, stepping & sliding across the ice on a pond in Central Park without breaking the ice. Save your money! Expand
  87. WorstOfAllTime
    Dec 27, 2005
    0
    Without question the stupidest most ridiculous movie ever made. It is an attack on anyone with even an ounce of intelligence. This is a remake of a remake. Everyone knows the story and how it ends. There is no suspense. And the special effects are over the top without a story line connected to it that makes any sense. For example do you think the vampire bats would attack Kong or the weak Without question the stupidest most ridiculous movie ever made. It is an attack on anyone with even an ounce of intelligence. This is a remake of a remake. Everyone knows the story and how it ends. There is no suspense. And the special effects are over the top without a story line connected to it that makes any sense. For example do you think the vampire bats would attack Kong or the weak humans who are simply standing there watching? Do you think you could actually catch a ride on a bat and land gently on the water. Do you think one bottle of chloroform put the Big Baby to sleep. And if it did how did they lift him on the small damaged boat that didn't even have a room for Adrian Brody? How did they get him through the door? Why did he not destroy the boat as he did NYC? What did they feed him? If the steel chains did not hold him how did they transport him to the theater without his destroying NYC? How did they rehearse? Why did the natives not try to protect him? Where did they go? This movie had more plot holes than swiss cheese. But you want us to believe that this was a good movie? Why because two-hundred million dollars was spent on bells and whistles with dumbed down special effects? This was eaily the second worst movie of the year behind War of the Worlds. Avoid at all costs. Expand
  88. Bruno
    Dec 27, 2005
    2
    Don't get fooled, the most overrated film I've seen. Hope the critics got at least a lot of money for that. The dialogues in the film are on of the worst ever (If there is nothing, then you've got nothing to lose). There is not even a second of an art, megalomaniac Jackson have definetly lost his brian. Guy that needs $$$$ to make a film and makes 30 minutes scene where Don't get fooled, the most overrated film I've seen. Hope the critics got at least a lot of money for that. The dialogues in the film are on of the worst ever (If there is nothing, then you've got nothing to lose). There is not even a second of an art, megalomaniac Jackson have definetly lost his brian. Guy that needs $$$$ to make a film and makes 30 minutes scene where huge dinosaurs fights king kong. No space for character development, dialogs, work with cameras, crafty pictures... all is lost in megalomaniac garbage where 30 feet monster fights another 30 feet monster. Expand
  89. ArmstrongR.
    Dec 26, 2005
    3
    Mick LaSalle's review of the movie for the San Francisco Chronicle is dead on. Peter Jackson's "Kong" is full of clever ideas, exciting action and touching moments, most of which should have been left on the cutting room floor.
  90. EveK.
    Dec 26, 2005
    2
    What were all those critics smoking? this was the most overstuffed turkey of the holiday season. somebody has to put Peter Jackson on a leash and put him on a budget. maybe then he'd remember that things like a cohesive story and character development matter even in an action fantasy. everything went on way, way too long. An exposition of over an hour and then when the characters are What were all those critics smoking? this was the most overstuffed turkey of the holiday season. somebody has to put Peter Jackson on a leash and put him on a budget. maybe then he'd remember that things like a cohesive story and character development matter even in an action fantasy. everything went on way, way too long. An exposition of over an hour and then when the characters are totally forgettable?? And why did the bats all of a sudden attack Kong, when he's obviously been hanging out with them for eons? There were so many things like that which just didn't make any sense. The scene which would have been really interesting -- how the hell did they get Kong on the ship and keep him alive on the voyage back to New York -- wasn't part of the picture. Sorry, a huge disappointment. Some nice touches for sure, thus the 2 rating instead of a 0, but I cringe at the waste of money. Expand
  91. StormIest
    Dec 26, 2005
    0
    Don't be fooled. This movie is terribly written, and when the visuals seem plastic and fake, and they often do, there is absolutely nothing to keep your attention on screen. Peter Jackson has never made a good film. He just doesn't get it.
  92. LameBrain
    Dec 26, 2005
    0
    Lamest movie of the year. Too bad to be believed. Acting was atroicious. Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself. A waste of 2 hundred million bucks. Movie is over 3 hours long and the first third is duller than moss growing on a rock. The second act is a return to Jurassic Park with some of the stupidest written scenes ever created. A trained monkey could have written a script better Lamest movie of the year. Too bad to be believed. Acting was atroicious. Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself. A waste of 2 hundred million bucks. Movie is over 3 hours long and the first third is duller than moss growing on a rock. The second act is a return to Jurassic Park with some of the stupidest written scenes ever created. A trained monkey could have written a script better than this. By the time they reach NY the movie should have capsized but we are forced to watch a last act without any dialogue. I think I saw Adrian Brody looking at his watch hoping Kong would jump to his death. I think he wishes it could have been him to be associated with such a lame effort. Avoid like the plague. Expand
  93. ScottE.
    Dec 26, 2005
    3
    I am so embarrassed to admit that I took my relatives to see this movie. Not only was it just laughably bad throughout the first hour, I can't say that it got any better as the audience was introduced to Act II at "Skull Island." With such lame acting and such horrible casting of Adrien Brody & Jack Black, I started to glance at my watch repeatedly, wondering if it would get any I am so embarrassed to admit that I took my relatives to see this movie. Not only was it just laughably bad throughout the first hour, I can't say that it got any better as the audience was introduced to Act II at "Skull Island." With such lame acting and such horrible casting of Adrien Brody & Jack Black, I started to glance at my watch repeatedly, wondering if it would get any better anytime soon. I have to admit that the dinosaur battles were viscerally exciting, but every other scene on the island seemed insulting. The part with the bugs was especially repulsive and head-scratchingly unnecessary. Why were we forced to see such an unoriginal movie? Only after the implausible transfer of Kong to New York does this movie actually pick up pace and start to redeem itself. At that point, it's too little, too late. Everyone in the theater was captivated by the Empire State Building sequence but not much else. Bottom Line: The movie dragged when Kong/Watts were not in the scene. No amount of CGI can save this self-indulgent film, no matter how much the critics praise this superficially bloated bust of a remake. Expand
  94. BillyD.
    Dec 25, 2005
    2
    I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. The beginning was drawn out but okay. The middle might has well have been cutscenes from a videogame. And the ending was very welcome. Shame on all I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. The beginning was drawn out but okay. The middle might has well have been cutscenes from a videogame. And the ending was very welcome. Shame on all involved for making me hate a fight between dinosaurs and a gargatuan ape. I should have been the easiest sell in the world, but instead I watched my shoes for the last hour of the movie. Expand
  95. BobbieSocks
    Dec 25, 2005
    0
    This is a mad house. Did you people actually see the same film that I witnessed. It was awful. Everything was stolen from another movie. The script was lame, the acting wooden, and as for the directing, Peter Jackson should find a new career. There was no suspense because we all know how it ends. Now if Jackson had jumped off the Empire State Building now that would have been an ending to This is a mad house. Did you people actually see the same film that I witnessed. It was awful. Everything was stolen from another movie. The script was lame, the acting wooden, and as for the directing, Peter Jackson should find a new career. There was no suspense because we all know how it ends. Now if Jackson had jumped off the Empire State Building now that would have been an ending to remember. Jackson stay home in New Zealand because if this is all you can turn out with a budget of two-hundred million you are in deep trouble. Avoid this turkey at all costs. Expand
  96. LadyLiberty
    Dec 25, 2005
    0
    Peter Jackson joins Steven Spielberg and George Lucas as an "over the hill let me show you how I can waste money" no talent with special effects moronic movies. First he bores us to tears with over an hour on boring stuff. Then he takes us to Skull Island or should I say back to Jurassic Park and presents some of the lamest writing this side of War Of The Worlds. And if this isn't Peter Jackson joins Steven Spielberg and George Lucas as an "over the hill let me show you how I can waste money" no talent with special effects moronic movies. First he bores us to tears with over an hour on boring stuff. Then he takes us to Skull Island or should I say back to Jurassic Park and presents some of the lamest writing this side of War Of The Worlds. And if this isn't bad enough he totally miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. The last hour you just can't wait for the Big Ape to jump off of the Empire State Building. There's no dialogue of any consequence and Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow is unbelievable climbing up the steps to the top of the building in the dead of winter in a shear dress and high heel shoes. And yes, if you still buy this garbage, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you. Expand
  97. Leroy
    Dec 24, 2005
    0
    Only three hours too long otherwise it was great.
  98. BillnTed
    Dec 23, 2005
    0
    Wow. People are saying this remake is imaginative and original? The fact that it's a REMAKE aside, this movie is taken from scraps of every stupid film Jackson seems to have been able to think of, from Jurassic Park to his own Lord of the Rings trilogy. Jackson is the most overrated director around right now (since some people are finally on to Spielberg).
  99. AntonioH.
    Dec 23, 2005
    2
    Quite disappointing. I think one reason people feel so agitated by this film is that Jackson spends over an hour building up trying to build up suspense for a story that everyone already knows. If the ape was a mystery, then we could buy all the ominous talk on the ship. Instead, I found myself waiting for the inevitable. And it doesn't help that the audience knows exactly what is Quite disappointing. I think one reason people feel so agitated by this film is that Jackson spends over an hour building up trying to build up suspense for a story that everyone already knows. If the ape was a mystery, then we could buy all the ominous talk on the ship. Instead, I found myself waiting for the inevitable. And it doesn't help that the audience knows exactly what is coming because they have all seen an endless number of previews. It is truly perplexing that Jackson, who does have a creative vision, decided to focus the main action scene on a battle with T-Rexes. Remake King Kong. Don't remake Jurassic Park. Why spend $200 million on something so unoriginal. And, yes, Jack Black is the wry hipster horribly misplaced in a 1930's era film. Expand
  100. Wendy
    Dec 23, 2005
    0
    This movie was an abomintion. It was awful. Peter Jackson has lost touch with reality if he thinks this was good. Truly awful. Stay far away. The audience was laughing and walking out.
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.