User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1269 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. Jan 17, 2014
    7
    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.
  2. Sep 3, 2014
    7
    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.
  3. Feb 14, 2013
    10
    Peter Jackson has done it again. King Kong is majestic, beautifully executed and a stunning love story. The movie is simple, but so effective, just a tragic story that holds you emotionally and visually from beginning to end. King Kong proves that Jackson is one hell of a director.
  4. Nov 28, 2012
    8
    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.
  5. Sep 27, 2011
    7
    "King Kong" is a great summer blockbuster movie that will throw you out of your mind. However, that's as far as the movie can get to you.
  6. Nov 8, 2012
    10
    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 the deal, in its last hour, it grows close to our hearts and then floors us.
  7. Mar 30, 2013
    7
    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.
  8. Jul 31, 2014
    10
    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 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 thisthere 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
  9. May 25, 2012
    10
    King Kong has very jaw dropping brawls with Kong. The story is everything that King Kong is and should be. Its a great remake and a very memorable story.
  10. Oct 30, 2010
    7
    the minute length was way too longer when its resonant, but that didn't stop Peter Jackson for making this perfect hit.
  11. Jan 26, 2014
    7
    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 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 runningPeter 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
  12. Dec 10, 2012
    6
    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'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 reallyIt'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
  13. Apr 26, 2014
    10
    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!
  14. Dec 29, 2013
    8
    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 brings us a memorable, visually stunning adventure.
  15. Mar 11, 2015
    9
    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 once again prove their spectacular prowess in the world of visual effects. The choreography and execution of the action scenes are nothing short of stunningKing 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
  16. Apr 11, 2013
    10
    Visually impressive, nostalgic and epic. Peter Jackson's King Kong is a beautiful and terrific remake that, though long, doesn't feel as long as it actually is and is filled with well choreographed sequences and heart-felt moments. Always a pleasure to watch.
  17. Apr 23, 2015
    7
    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 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. (StevenBy 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
  18. Feb 15, 2011
    8
    While the ending wasn't really satisfying, overall, it was a fun ride. And I actually didn't mind the length of the movie, something I criticised Peter Kackson's LOTR trilogy for.
  19. Aug 17, 2014
    7
    With some strong points to make and an engaging story, "King Kong" is a surprisingly decent remake of a celebrated classic. The first thing to praise is its visuals, of course. Watts is a good fit for the role, as are Black and Chandler, while Adrien Brody is perhaps a bit too sorrowful. The film certainly succeeds in making its audience sympathize with the beast and get its ecological message.
  20. Aug 26, 2013
    9
    A superb remake, and a thrilling adventure on its own terms, King Kong was one of 2005's most entertaining movies. It starts out slow, with a very 1930's vibe. I wouldn't consider the sections before the crew gets close to Skull Island great filmmaking exactly, but Jackson has made good choice not to rush the story. Once they get to the island it proves that it was well worth the halfA superb remake, and a thrilling adventure on its own terms, King Kong was one of 2005's most entertaining movies. It starts out slow, with a very 1930's vibe. I wouldn't consider the sections before the crew gets close to Skull Island great filmmaking exactly, but Jackson has made good choice not to rush the story. Once they get to the island it proves that it was well worth the half hour wait. Believable performances, for the most part incredible special effects, Jackson's expert direction, and real emotion make this a must own. Granted, when I first saw the previews years ago I was hoping for a more surreal and out there vision of the story, but what we got was more than good enough. Almost forgot to mention how great the movie's score was. (That means the background music.) Expand
  21. Mar 3, 2013
    10
    This is probably the most anticipated movie of 2005. It was very entertaining and very unpredictable. Naomi Watts and Jack Black were fantastic for their roles. It's so entertaining that the 3 hours of it feels like 1 hour.
  22. Mar 24, 2013
    8
    Very good special effects although the plot line could have used a bit more.
  23. Oct 9, 2011
    9
    It doesn't disappoint as a remake. Actually, Peter Jackson's vision of King Kong is more epic, passionate and unforgettable than the original.
  24. Sep 5, 2014
    8
    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 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
    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 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
  25. Apr 21, 2012
    7
    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 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.
  26. Mar 31, 2012
    10
    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 and pulled on but still good. Overall, great movie. A great blockbuster.
  27. May 19, 2013
    8
    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 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, andHis 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
  28. Dec 29, 2014
    8
    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 my top 10 monster flicks of all time. 8/10 (Great)
  29. Sep 20, 2013
    9
    King Kong may not be as good as some of Peter Jackson's incredible works, but is still amazing. It requires patience to watch the whole movie, as it is very long, slow and progressive, but it's worth it if you sit through the whole thing. The camera-work is fantastic and captures moments brilliantly, and the music perfectly blends in with whichever scene/moment it is played in, especiallyKing Kong may not be as good as some of Peter Jackson's incredible works, but is still amazing. It requires patience to watch the whole movie, as it is very long, slow and progressive, but it's worth it if you sit through the whole thing. The camera-work is fantastic and captures moments brilliantly, and the music perfectly blends in with whichever scene/moment it is played in, especially when it is an emotional scene. This film isn't overly long and I don't understand why people complain about it's lengh, as it's a good thing that it's long, because it lets you think about whats happening and it lets you make the most of the moment; it's like a progressive rock song. The character building is superb and the acting is fantastic. The progressive feel to the film makes the finale all the more amazing, as the action, story and characters come together to make something spectacular, emotional and immensely gripping.

    King Kong is a brilliant blend of action, adventure, and suspence. It is the film equivalent of a fantastic progressive rock song. So I give this film a 94/100!
    Expand
  30. Jan 22, 2014
    10
    Kong resonates almost every genre in a turbulent movie ride of a lifetime. There is so much cinematic elements of range happening in every scene that can be occasionally an unusual mixture, but to embrace film and it's artistry all jammed into a 3 hour epic of our time is before you in another one of Peter Jackson's excellent work.
  31. Apr 8, 2013
    6
    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 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 toomany 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
  32. Apr 15, 2012
    7
    Best King Kong by a long shot. Worth watching with a friend and much better than the other ones. King Kong 7.4
  33. Feb 3, 2013
    9
    esta es una entretenida sofocante y excitante pelĂ­cula llena de actuaciones espectaculares y ni que decir de sus efectos esta es sin duda otra obra maestra de peter jackson
  34. Dec 15, 2010
    6
    king kong is the remake of the original movie. there is no novelity in the script. the movie is just a remake.
    execution is nice. enthralling and captivating. direction screenplay and technical values are the upper hand to the movie. casting is nice and production values are worthy. the final grade of the movie is B+
  35. Dec 19, 2012
    8
    "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.
  36. 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.
  37. Mar 19, 2015
    8
    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 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 AndyThis 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
  38. Aug 14, 2010
    10
    King Kong is one of the most memorable and celebrated stories of all-time. This remake or "re-envisioned" version of the original King Kongs is stunning, heartful, and simply unforgettable. Peter Jackson creates a remarkable and haunting Skull Island. King Kong is arguably the greatest CGI character of all-time. Forget 'Avatar', this is CGI at its best. Kong has emotion, cuts, etc.King Kong is one of the most memorable and celebrated stories of all-time. This remake or "re-envisioned" version of the original King Kongs is stunning, heartful, and simply unforgettable. Peter Jackson creates a remarkable and haunting Skull Island. King Kong is arguably the greatest CGI character of all-time. Forget 'Avatar', this is CGI at its best. Kong has emotion, cuts, etc. You can practically believe he or any other creature of Skull Island are real, thanks to the superb visuals. Despite the huge runtime, Kong never falters and does justice to its source material-and then some. I truly believe that this version of Kong is the best ever released. Everything is damn-right perfect, and you can't help but cry at the end, even though you already know what is going to happen to Kong. This movie transcends all of its hype and truly engages us on all levels: visual, intellectual and emotional. A true masterpiece. Go see it-now. Expand
  39. Dec 10, 2011
    8
    Quite good! The effects were tremendous. Even so is the fight scene between Kong & Dinosaurs!!! Very compelling!!! But after that, it's borin'... Too much effort in tellin' the Kong-going-NY story instead of the interaction between the duo and the 'triangle'...
  40. Jan 9, 2012
    8
    Great movie, nice soundtrack and environment, but way to long. The movie is really good, but so long that it gets quite boring after some time...and it gets exciting again at the ending.
  41. Mar 11, 2015
    6
    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
  42. Aug 24, 2011
    5
    Special effects were out of this world awesome, and the storyline was pretty good...BUT...it was about an hour too long! It spends a good 40 minutes of the movie before it even gets to King Kong! then we still have to witness his capture/relationship with Naomi Watts' character, and his tirade in New York City! I have only been able to watch it all the way through in one sitting once.Special effects were out of this world awesome, and the storyline was pretty good...BUT...it was about an hour too long! It spends a good 40 minutes of the movie before it even gets to King Kong! then we still have to witness his capture/relationship with Naomi Watts' character, and his tirade in New York City! I have only been able to watch it all the way through in one sitting once. Also, Jack Black just drags the cast down. There are SOO many other great actors in the movie that he sticks out like a sore thumb. Great "try" but I expected better. Expand
  43. Mar 24, 2011
    7
    First of all, a three-hour marathon is precisely what I expect from Peter Jackson. I really do! He makes movies like very few in the world - he's precise, thorough, immaculate, and needs a canvass that he can expand as much as he needs. King Kong is not at all boring or lengthy, it is just right for the way Jackson builds his characters up, lets the audience into Kong, into the overallFirst of all, a three-hour marathon is precisely what I expect from Peter Jackson. I really do! He makes movies like very few in the world - he's precise, thorough, immaculate, and needs a canvass that he can expand as much as he needs. King Kong is not at all boring or lengthy, it is just right for the way Jackson builds his characters up, lets the audience into Kong, into the overall evolution of the movie's plot. It is obvious that Jackson's major emphasis is on Kong and Ann (Naomi Watts), and he takes his time with them. Andy Serkis, who also played Gollum in the Lord of the Ring trilogy, is a chameleon and master of the fantasy-creatures theme. Serkis has given Kong a life of its own, and his interplay with Watts' character is the highlight of the movie. Now, what were Jack Black and Adrien Brody doing is a question that really got to me. I seriously wonder if Carl Denham had been played by, say, Tom Wilkinson, Denham might have been 'logical' for me. Black's too young to play Denham's treacherous, unethical, and callous personality, Wilkinson might have been a logical fit with his age and acting credentials, along with some serious bodyweight loss and a younger-looking make-up! But I'm running into Skull Island fantasy here! I enjoyed the action sequences, Kong's physical specimen is a sight to behold, though that ultimate fight between Kong and the before-mutation dinosaurs, when Kong rescues Ann, was probably too long and lengthy for me. As if Kong wasn't done with three monster dinos, he still has to fight his way through the labyrinth of those eerie vines and climb down to land to fight the 'mother' dino of them all! The final city scenes were captivating, the sound and urgency of the situation was just perfect. Perhaps, just perhaps, Jackson felt that if the audience were led to the 'beauty killed the beast, not the guns' part, the death of Kong would seem cathartic and logical enough. I enjoyed the background score by James Newton Howard who compliments Kong's physical rage with the softest piano and orchestral notes, and yet, elevates it a notch above when the action gets going. All in all, Jackson doesn't disappoint, and neither does Serkis or Watts. Black was the disappointment for me. He was much, much better and natural in his magnum opus, School of Rock. In King Kong, he's just a naturally-good comedy actor trying to portray serious and cunning. He's failed miserably. Which is surprising, because his Ned Schneebly/Dewey Finn was an amazing and finely-balanced performance. Expand
  44. May 22, 2015
    6
    "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.
  45. Jul 29, 2011
    10
    Jackson's King Kong With Best THE BEST Action Sequences And Great Music By James Newton Howard It's Not A Film But An Anthology Of True Love.Great Film

    10/10
  46. Jul 2, 2014
    7
    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
    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
  47. 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
  48. Dec 17, 2014
    10
    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.
  49. StephenH.
    Aug 1, 2008
    6
    Generally an ok film, but i lost interest at certain points. I found the boat journey to the island the most enjoyable bit. Some fo the effects were very real, while others needed a bit more imagination and forgiveness, not that i'd ever rate a film on special effects anyway. We have no idea where all the natives disapeared to, i guess they just weren't required for the film. Generally an ok film, but i lost interest at certain points. I found the boat journey to the island the most enjoyable bit. Some fo the effects were very real, while others needed a bit more imagination and forgiveness, not that i'd ever rate a film on special effects anyway. We have no idea where all the natives disapeared to, i guess they just weren't required for the film. Overall it was enjoyable, but a tad long and in some places defying the laws of physics and chance in a lot of the action sequences to a point even the most openminded of people couldn't forgive. Expand
  50. GoffyA.
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    How bad can a movie be? In two words: KING KONG.
  51. JoshK.
    Jan 2, 2006
    10
    Simply amazing. One of the best, if not the best film this year.
  52. SimonC.
    Jan 3, 2006
    7
    >Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. OK. Since you asked, I'll try to address a couple of point you have raised. >And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to sleep. Well, it was an entire flagon of it, and it hit him right on the nose. Would that be enough to put a 25 foot gorilla to sleep? I don't >Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. OK. Since you asked, I'll try to address a couple of point you have raised. >And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to sleep. Well, it was an entire flagon of it, and it hit him right on the nose. Would that be enough to put a 25 foot gorilla to sleep? I don't know, but it's debatable, and therefore hardly a glaring plot hole. >Can anyone explain how he did not drown or how they lifted him on the damged little tug boat that could? When he fell unconscious, his was clearly shown resting on a rock, not in the water. Who knows how they got him to the boat. They may have been able to bring the ship closer and winch him aboard. Perhaps this is unlikely, but again, I wouldn't consider it to be a glaring plot hole. It's not a documentary, you know. >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? Is it inconceivable that a boat and crew that specialises in capturing wild animals would have chains and sufficient food on board? I'd suggest they rigged up a cage and chains on the main cargo deck. >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? The flashbulbs from the press clearly triggered his rage. The press would not have been there for rehearsals, only for opening night. > 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. So she was wearing the costume from that chorus girl show she was in, and didn't put on a cold because she ran outside in a rush after hearing the commotion. Is that such a big deal? >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. A) They cleared out when the sailors arrived with guns. B) I assume they would have cleared even further out when they heard Kong smashing the gate down. They weren't trying to feed Darrow to Kong because they love him, you know. It was a sacrifice. They were terrified of him. They wouldn't stick around to see what happened after he knocked the gate down. >You people raving about this trailer trash of a movie are totally insane. You are desparately in need of some professional help. I didn't think the movie was fantastic at all. I thought the compositing between CG and live action was often poor, and I loathe the jerky motion effect Jackson uses in the first encounter with the island natives, but most of the issues you have raised here are non-issues, given the fantastic premise of the film. If you want it to adhere stictly to the limits of reality, there would be NO 25 foot ape! Expand
  53. LouisM.
    Jan 6, 2006
    10
    I am very critical on movies and they need to really blow me away before I start saying good things. To describe this movie in words just does not make sense. It is a visual feast to say the least. It is filled with emotion and honesty. The depiction of Kong's personality is endearing. The movie frightens, humours, saddens, but most of all, entertains beyond belief. 3 hours never I am very critical on movies and they need to really blow me away before I start saying good things. To describe this movie in words just does not make sense. It is a visual feast to say the least. It is filled with emotion and honesty. The depiction of Kong's personality is endearing. The movie frightens, humours, saddens, but most of all, entertains beyond belief. 3 hours never felt this short. A movie for people who will never grow up and who will never stop believing in incredible fantasy. Films like these are the reason I go to the movies. Expand
  54. 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
  55. 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.
  56. GrahamS.
    Jan 9, 2006
    5
    At least an hour too long. Good performances from all actors, and special effects - but I was completely bored by this stage.
  57. 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.
  58. Mart
    Feb 6, 2006
    9
    I was surprised by how good this film is.I didn't enjoy any of the LOTR films(I must be the only person on Earth) but Jackson redeemed himself with this one.Once the action starts it rarely stops.Unlike the LOTR I didn't feel the time go.Also, Jack Black is very entertaining in the Orson Welles-type role.
  59. JackM.
    Apr 1, 2006
    5
    The middle hour on Skull Island is utterly fantastic. The first and third hours, however, are devoid of anything beyond showy SFX razzledazzle. If you come an hour late and leave an hour early, you won't miss anything.
  60. AnthonyS.
    Dec 22, 2005
    10
    One of the best blockbusters i have seen in recent memory. i mean sure its flawed, but i was never bored through out the 3 hours, which says something. now only jackson did a tighter edit, then we have a true action masterpiece!
  61. IGiveUp
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    I give up. I truly do. The professional critics had to be bought and paid to give the fabulous reviews they gave. Let me set the record straight. This is a total bomb. A remake with heart and soul. There is little if any meaningful dialogue and the entire movie is without substance. Jack Black is simply awful. Adrian Brody is totally miscast. As for the story it unravels way too long and I give up. I truly do. The professional critics had to be bought and paid to give the fabulous reviews they gave. Let me set the record straight. This is a total bomb. A remake with heart and soul. There is little if any meaningful dialogue and the entire movie is without substance. Jack Black is simply awful. Adrian Brody is totally miscast. As for the story it unravels way too long and is quite frankly boring. There is no suspense as we all know the story. And how was KONG the only gorilla on the island when every other species was tenfold. Does it make sense that KONG the master of the island and the only one with intelligence was the last of his species. And how did the natives build the great wall without being eaten alive? And since the natives sacrificed women to KONG to be eaten how come they did nothing to save him when he was knocked out by the mildest form of anesthesia from one small bottle of chloroform in a wide open environment. It wouldn't put us to sleep let alone a 25 foot 4 ton gorilla. As for the small damaged ship and taking KONG back to NYC without him destroying the ship, well pehaps he took in the rays while laying on a chaise lounge with hot babe Naomi Watts by his side? This story was absolutely preposterous. You would have to have the brain of an amoeba to believe any of this crap. Avoid this turkey at all costs. Gobble -Gobble. Expand
  62. MikeG.
    Dec 20, 2005
    3
    A big disappointment, especially for a movie that did a great job of ratcheting up the tension in the first hour or so of the movie. Jackson also made 1932 NYC look spectacular, gave motivation to Black, Watts and the rest of the cast. Suddenly, the movie morphed into a B-picture, complete with action movie cliche after action movie cliche that just made the audience squirm and groan. The A big disappointment, especially for a movie that did a great job of ratcheting up the tension in the first hour or so of the movie. Jackson also made 1932 NYC look spectacular, gave motivation to Black, Watts and the rest of the cast. Suddenly, the movie morphed into a B-picture, complete with action movie cliche after action movie cliche that just made the audience squirm and groan. The movie looks great, but it just felt long and ultimately boring. Why make this movie if all you're going to do is modernize the special effects? The story of man's inhumanity to beast is lost somewhere along the way here, resulting in nothing more than a technically spectacular director flexing his muscle. We all know Jackson can make a movie look great. Somehow, after his masterpiece "Return of the King", I was expecting so much more. Expand
  63. BillS.
    Dec 20, 2005
    10
    Best movie ever made. Let me go down in history as being the fist to have said this. This is one of cinema's oldest stories and PeterJackson's retelling of it is virtually flawless. Seeing it on the big screen is an epic experience that even Lucas' recent Star Wars films could not rival.
  64. TomP.
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    King Kong is truly remarkable in how horrific a production it is. I go to movies with mixed reviews generally with the hope that it may provice different meanings to different people, in other words, it is open to interpretation. No. There was nothing to this movie beyond action that suddenly and inexplicably grinds to a halt time and time again, followed endlessly by another dinosaur, King Kong is truly remarkable in how horrific a production it is. I go to movies with mixed reviews generally with the hope that it may provice different meanings to different people, in other words, it is open to interpretation. No. There was nothing to this movie beyond action that suddenly and inexplicably grinds to a halt time and time again, followed endlessly by another dinosaur, spider, or any number of conveniently-placed CGI-disasters approaching silently and unnoticed from behind. But this movie saddens me the most simply because I have remained earnestly and reasonably unconvinced of the elitist notion that the public was completely diluted and that everyone is essentially an idiot beyond ourselves. Well, congrats, American public, you have lost the faith of yet another in your approval of this film, and thanks Peter Jackson, for making me realize I actualy am smarter and less dim-witted than 90% of movie-goers today. You scammed me good with this one, got my $6.25 and the rest of the good people's in my theater. I feel that the only reason that more viewers didn't walk out of this movie besides me and my best friend was because it is unfortunately slightly embarrassing and, yes, "elitist", to throw up your hands in disgust in the middle of a movie theater and promtly leave. I used to firmly believe that ALL people were more complex that they first seem. Statistical discrimination, I guess, is justified. Expand
  65. GeorgeR.
    Dec 20, 2005
    2
    It would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except for the stunning scene atop the empire state building (i've never been more afraid of heights - praise to the background artists), there was noIt would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except for the stunning scene atop the empire state building (i've never been more afraid of heights - praise to the background artists), there was no motivation to make this movie again. kong still moves like the stop-motion animated creature from the 30's (too sharply or too laboriously), naomi watts looks like a bucktoothed flatchested hillbilly, and kong is kong is kong - no new insights. why were all these non-elements worth three hours of my life? if for whatever reason i ever taught a class in editing at an elementary school i would assign students this movie and ask them to make a one hour and 50 minute version. it would undoubtedly take them all of a half hour to do so. what were the filmmaker$ thinking? Expand
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. PinkRose
    Jan 11, 2006
    10
    The best I saw last 2005, and I bet many envy this movie for its quality, I can read that.
  69. 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
  70. LuisC.
    Jan 10, 2006
    10
    Funny, goood, Amazing!, very enjoyable to be a fantastic film, made me feel all kind of emotions.
  71. Duncan
    Jan 13, 2006
    9
    Impressive and gripping, cgi not always on the spot and probably a tad too long.
  72. GamhaG.
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    The Incredible picture of the year 2005, I like it a lot.
  73. Criticexpert
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    After Brokeback Mountain this is the Best !, Magnificent, Colossal.
  74. C.B.
    Jan 17, 2006
    6
    Yes, the CGI is amazing. But, do we really need to see thi smuch? This movie was way, way too long. I was done watching at the 2 hour and 30 minute mark.
  75. 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.
  76. 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!
  77. VinceM.
    Jan 1, 2006
    10
    In my opinion Peter Jackson is one of the best directors of our time, this movie is one of the best of the year, a little long but you couldn't tell his version of this story one and half hours
  78. ROSEOFEnsenada
    Jan 2, 2006
    10
    Only one word... Excelent, poor of those who can not enjoy fantasy movies, only want see wars, please, change the world!, 10.
  79. StephanieD.
    Jan 20, 2006
    10
    I loved this film, it was great. All the way through i didnt know what to expect and the effects were brill!!! i am definatly getting it on dvd when it comes out, this had something foe everyone and was one of the best films of the year, and the cast were great. Defiantly a must see, and i would see it again and again!!!
  80. DaveC.
    Jan 3, 2006
    8
    I find it hilarious that people are giving KING KONG bad reviews based on plausibility!!?? This was supposed to be big, dumb, and fun. Did you all miss the first two versions? Were you expecting a Woody Allen or Fellini film?? This was Peter Friggin Jackson doing King Kong!! You guys sound so stupid saying things like, "the T-Rex fight was so unrealistic". Of course it was!! LOL! Or, "how I find it hilarious that people are giving KING KONG bad reviews based on plausibility!!?? This was supposed to be big, dumb, and fun. Did you all miss the first two versions? Were you expecting a Woody Allen or Fellini film?? This was Peter Friggin Jackson doing King Kong!! You guys sound so stupid saying things like, "the T-Rex fight was so unrealistic". Of course it was!! LOL! Or, "how did they get him to New York"? Who gives a crap!? It's a MOVIE about a 4 ton gorilla!! Go with it. Have some fun. It isn't "Sideways" for godsakes(totally overrated crap BTW). I also love the criticism that "it was too long". I guess this is a bad thing in the year 2006. I guess people are just too busy these days to sit in a movie and just ENJOY themselves? How silly. Kong rocked and was the most fun I've ever had in a theater. A total blast! Expand
  81. 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
  82. AoifeG.
    Jan 3, 2006
    8
    Overall-Very good. For me there were three main problems... no.1- It really dragged on at the start it took too long to get into the actual story. no.2-When Carl was showing his discovery to everyone back in America he didn't bother telling them about the dinosours. In my opinion dinosours are more important about a giant ape.
  83. I'mSorryMsJackson
    Jan 3, 2006
    5
    Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and where I lost a lot of weight. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and where I lost a lot of weight. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, whereupon I was released under strict supervision. The actors were often unable to understand my various grunts, but I felt this created an exciting atmosphere on set, one where noone knew what they were doing. I also tended to throw the camera around when I got bored, but I think this adds to the film's dynamism. It is a shame that I accidentally urinated on the motion control rig, because it created a constant crane loop, sorry about this. Unfortunately the editing room was too small to contain my monkey vitality and we lost one editor cos I chewed on his nose and bashed on his ballsarea. This may have given the film an irregular tempo, but one I'm sure hairy animals will enjoy. On a personal note, I chose to keep the movie long to reproduce how I felt when I was caged in downtown Auckland. There were a few regrettable incidents, like when I threw Jack Black cos I mistook him for a log, but my only real regret is there hadn't been such a debilitating shortage of bananas when we wrote the script. Expand
  84. JeffH.
    Jan 4, 2006
    5
    Entertaining, but not even close to the hype. Naomi Watts was good, but the extremely fake dinosaur scenes ruined the movie, and there were a lot of them. And there were truly bizarre moments, particularly when Naomi Watts starts juggling and doing acrobatic stunts for Kong. Yeah, that's believable.
  85. EmW
    Jan 5, 2006
    10
    I was really blown away by this!!! Just... WOW!!! I haven't seen a movie this entertaining for me except the Lord of the Rings movies! This film had some of the greatest special effects I have ever seen, and the acting between the two leads was fantastic! (I loved Jack Black aswell) But people. . .Boring?. .Too long?. . .You have got to be kidding me! Don't people enjoy movies I was really blown away by this!!! Just... WOW!!! I haven't seen a movie this entertaining for me except the Lord of the Rings movies! This film had some of the greatest special effects I have ever seen, and the acting between the two leads was fantastic! (I loved Jack Black aswell) But people. . .Boring?. .Too long?. . .You have got to be kidding me! Don't people enjoy movies these days! They were the quickest and most fun 3 hours I have ever spent at the cinema, yeah so what the first hour had no Kong, but it's called telling the story and if taking it back to that time in the 1930's (how it was in the original film) isn't respectful to the original and doesn't show dedication to the craft. . . then pigs fly. Unrealistic? COME ON!!! Was Lord of the Rings realistic??? Hmmm. . . then what about Harry Potter? The Chronicles of Narnia anyone? The Descent? Spiderman? Dont get me wrong, their all great films, though unrealistic, but who cares! It's called E.N.T.E.R.T.A.I.N.M.E.N.T and nothing has to make sense in films thats the beauty of films in gerneral and the freedom you get with making them. Why can't King Kong fight 3 T-Rex's?! This idea was used to convey the strength of Kong and the lengths he would go to in order to keep his beloved safe. It seems to me that these days people lack imagination! It's not meant to be very tangible! LOL! Hey, it's a good film if YOU enjoyed it. I even recommended it to one of my good friends and she LOVED it as much as me!! The relationship between King Kong and Ann was lovely and very romantic!!! (The Central Park scene especially!!) King was such a dreamboat of an ape!! You could definitley tell that she felt the same way and that no male would ever make such an impression on her as Kong has, she needs him and likewise. You knew that she would have chosen Kong if she had the choice, compared to Jack Driscoll. I wish guys would protect me like that (if ever i was in danger, etc!) But he wasn't just protective, he was also faithful to her! He searched for her when he escaped from the chains in New York And that sunset scene when he patted his chest like Ann did earlier with him, brought tears to my eyes. "Beautiful" says Ann, I could'nt of put it better myself. :) Expand
  86. Filmfan
    Jan 6, 2006
    6
    I was completely bored, and disappointed that Peter Jackson did not bring anything original to the movie. It is way too long and seems to be going through the motions. He studied Spielberg and The Titanic way too much before making this film.
  87. Elliott
    Jan 7, 2006
    10
    People who are commenting on the plausibility of King Kong are bafoons. This movie stays so true to the original story while also expanding on it and bringing it to life in the new millennium. This movie is outstanding, definitely the best big-budget film of the year. People who give something like this a zero must be working on a negative scale. King Kong is fantastic, simply stunning.
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. 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.
  91. Paul
    Jan 9, 2006
    8
    This movie was definitely worth the watch. My only complaint was that it was too long. King Kong looked incredibly real and the actors did a pretty good job. The action scenes were incredible, especially the one with Kong vs. the T Rex (in the vines!!!) There are too many people giving it a 10 because they like it or a 0 because they don't. Well, it's somewhere in between. This movie was definitely worth the watch. My only complaint was that it was too long. King Kong looked incredibly real and the actors did a pretty good job. The action scenes were incredible, especially the one with Kong vs. the T Rex (in the vines!!!) There are too many people giving it a 10 because they like it or a 0 because they don't. Well, it's somewhere in between. People should start to rate fairly. Anyways, go see the movie. It's one that you'll appreciate more on the big screen. Just be sure your seats are comfortable before the show starts. Expand
  92. 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.
  93. 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
  94. SamX.
    Apr 1, 2006
    4
    A valiant effort by Peter Jackson but the idea just doesn't wash with me. I would be rating it 10/10 if it wasn't for it's monotony and slowness. The film should've been shortened by an hour. Ann Darrow's neck should've snapped three seconds after being waved around by the enormous CGI monstrocity, but instead her hair stayed in place and her dress was still A valiant effort by Peter Jackson but the idea just doesn't wash with me. I would be rating it 10/10 if it wasn't for it's monotony and slowness. The film should've been shortened by an hour. Ann Darrow's neck should've snapped three seconds after being waved around by the enormous CGI monstrocity, but instead her hair stayed in place and her dress was still clean by the end of the movie. The 1933 version seems more realistic than this. Expand
  95. JoeY.
    Apr 2, 2006
    7
    It rises to a 7 only because of the relationship between Naomi Watts and Kong. Their scenes together are as wondrous as any on film. The tenderness and trust and playfulness of these two characters will bring tears to your eyes. As for the rest of the film, I thought the performances were stiff, the casting choice of the other leads were poor and the action sequences were overwhelming, in It rises to a 7 only because of the relationship between Naomi Watts and Kong. Their scenes together are as wondrous as any on film. The tenderness and trust and playfulness of these two characters will bring tears to your eyes. As for the rest of the film, I thought the performances were stiff, the casting choice of the other leads were poor and the action sequences were overwhelming, in other words the money moved far too quickly to develop suspense and allows us to experience Skull Island throught the eyes of the characters. Without Watts and Kong, this movie would be a 0, a huge dud. But again, their scenes together are well worth the price of admission. Expand
  96. Neil
    Apr 2, 2006
    6
    Too long, too many special effects shots (the scene where the crew is running from the dinosaurs looks phony), and the ending fails to resonate. The first third builds palpable fear of what's coming, but once the movie moves to the island it gets bogged down in sci-fi.
  97. EdwinK.
    Apr 7, 2006
    4
    Did Peter make this movie just for himself and his children??? Highly unrealistic, overdone, way too long, bad acting, bad plots, fortunately I could stop my rented copy when it all became too much. Sad to see such stuff come out of PJ's hand. Couldn't do it without Tolkien?
  98. FrancoH.
    Aug 2, 2006
    10
    King Kong, bitches! Peter Jackson does it once again!
  99. AditiT.
    Aug 30, 2006
    7
    it is a nice movie but still some suspence should also be there.
  100. NickA.
    Oct 30, 2007
    9
    I
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.