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. 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
  2. Jul 30, 2015
    6
    While some special effects (excluding King Kong himself) are lazily unfinished and its pace can sometimes be problematic, "King Kong" is a solid update of the 1933's picture thanks to talented performances and enthralling direction.

    6.5/10
  3. 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
  4. 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+
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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?
  18. Balzac
    Oct 7, 2007
    6
    Like the Big Ape himself, this movie is bloated with too much flab. Kong himself looks like Mighty Joe Young. They made him too small. The scene where Kong wipes the jungle floor with 3 T-Rexes is overkill an not believable. But hey, it's a picture about a giant ape and his blond girlfriend.
  19. PDWrite
    Dec 17, 2005
    4
    Die, Kong, Die! When he's passing out on the island I thought, my god, are we going to have to go through this again? But I was wrong--it seemed like we had to go through the same mournful, incredibly slooooowww gazes another ten times! Her face is great, his face is great, the expressions are wonderful--but too long, and Jackson doesn't seem to even know what dialogue is. I was Die, Kong, Die! When he's passing out on the island I thought, my god, are we going to have to go through this again? But I was wrong--it seemed like we had to go through the same mournful, incredibly slooooowww gazes another ten times! Her face is great, his face is great, the expressions are wonderful--but too long, and Jackson doesn't seem to even know what dialogue is. I was entertained, but please, go back to elf-talk or something. Plus, I still want to punch Adrian Brody in the nose as much as Halle Berry did at the oscars. Expand
  20. MichaelL.
    Dec 23, 2005
    6
    Only one hour too long.
  21. JoshuaS.
    Dec 23, 2005
    5
    Insulting in its attempt to subvert the racism inherit in the story, sub-Jurrasic Park level dinosaur effects. Too long by 45 minutes and yet still mildly entertaining.
  22. Annalisa
    Jan 1, 2006
    4
    While there were great suspense gasping-for-air, mind blowingstuff happening in the movie, it was way too long - from getting to the island to being on the island. I was like "Hurry up and get to New York already!!"- Animal attacks overdone, and by the time he was on top of the tower, it was like "kill him already". There could have been more deleted scenes.
  23. SamD.
    Jan 1, 2006
    5
    Great special effects. Jack Black was good. An hour to long.
  24. rostokov
    Oct 19, 2006
    4
    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 grew a beard. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, whereupon I was 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 grew a beard. 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 and exciting atmosphere on set, one where no one 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
  25. Rod
    Jan 28, 2006
    5
    Disappointing effort from the team which made 3 great Lord of the Rings films - but it always was a juvenile choice. The New York settings were pretty good but the island based scenes were generally terrible - so bad that I was close to leaving the theatre and I have never done that before. PJ's worst excesses are when he lets CG get in the way of good story telling (think the Disappointing effort from the team which made 3 great Lord of the Rings films - but it always was a juvenile choice. The New York settings were pretty good but the island based scenes were generally terrible - so bad that I was close to leaving the theatre and I have never done that before. PJ's worst excesses are when he lets CG get in the way of good story telling (think the Legolas as super hero bounding across the oliphant in LOTR by way of example). The scenes with Kong and the T-rexs, plus general chit-chat while dinosaurs stomp over the top while our heros run down the path were just plain silly. For anyone who hasn't seen it try out Jackson's amazing 1994 film Heavenly Creatures. Expand
  26. PeterS.
    Jan 5, 2006
    6
    Delightful, full of surprises, but way too long and repetitive. Jackson didn't know when to quit. Certainly half-an-hour sooner than he did.
  27. EddieC.
    Apr 3, 2006
    5
    This is a decent movie, the begining is extremely dull, no action at all, you kinda just "know" whats gonna happen, but you still have to sit through 20-30 mins to see it happen. Then theirs a "boat scene" or should I say, a "boat-half of the movie" where its just a bit of stupid "plot" and you have to wait what seems, or maybe was, an hour or so. Nothing really gets "good" until King This is a decent movie, the begining is extremely dull, no action at all, you kinda just "know" whats gonna happen, but you still have to sit through 20-30 mins to see it happen. Then theirs a "boat scene" or should I say, a "boat-half of the movie" where its just a bit of stupid "plot" and you have to wait what seems, or maybe was, an hour or so. Nothing really gets "good" until King Kong and Skull Island really come in, then still everything, the fight scene, the New York scene, is extremely dragged, the effects are great, everything looks amazing, and their are pretty entertaining scenes, but all in all this movie lacks excitement and loses your attention. Expand
  28. Supersean
    Dec 19, 2005
    4
    I ended up lauughing the whole time. This movie was so incredibly ridiculous, and then took itself seriously. It reminded me of doom, only doom didn't take it's self seriously. And the last line of the movie was sooooo lame. And nothing made any sense. And the dinosaur fight was like WWE, hahahha this movie is hysterical it's so insanely ridiculous. See it once so you can I ended up lauughing the whole time. This movie was so incredibly ridiculous, and then took itself seriously. It reminded me of doom, only doom didn't take it's self seriously. And the last line of the movie was sooooo lame. And nothing made any sense. And the dinosaur fight was like WWE, hahahha this movie is hysterical it's so insanely ridiculous. See it once so you can laugh at it. Expand
  29. RichardA
    Dec 19, 2005
    6
    Too long. Intelligent use of visual effects. Mostly stupid characters and very shallow story. Questions: How was Kong transferred from Skull Island to New York? (This could have been an interesting part of the story.) Why wasn't The Ape caged instead of being just chained? Why is the New York mayor so stupid to allow the show? How did Jack knew where Ann and Kong were sleeping? Why Too long. Intelligent use of visual effects. Mostly stupid characters and very shallow story. Questions: How was Kong transferred from Skull Island to New York? (This could have been an interesting part of the story.) Why wasn't The Ape caged instead of being just chained? Why is the New York mayor so stupid to allow the show? How did Jack knew where Ann and Kong were sleeping? Why is Ann so stupid (or was she just crazy in love)? Mwahaha... Expand
  30. WalkerR.
    Dec 22, 2005
    6
    Big effects, little substance. I forgot about the film as soon as I left the theater. The problem with these effects driven movies is they rely way to much on the CGI. Use it wisely my son. They lose their effect. I eventually became bored. Kong himself was good. But not enough to save the film. On top of that, its about 30 mins too long. Certaninly no LOTR. Peace out.
  31. VerminD.
    Dec 27, 2005
    6
    Not a bad film, but not a particularly good one either. Forgettable. In the same league as War of the Worlds, Batman, Narnia, Star Wars and all the other CGI work-outs that have come along this year. If I had to sum it up in one word I'd say 'confused'. Lots of bits seemed odd, especially Naomi Watts' interactions with Kong
  32. DanL.
    Dec 31, 2005
    6
    When they weren't on Skull Island, it was boring and some of the NYC street scenes looked real fakey.
  33. JimG.
    Jan 1, 2006
    5
    It
  34. JoelT.
    Jan 12, 2006
    5
    I thought the first hour or so was great. Then comes a barrage of ridiculous action scenes, most of which should have been edited out for their sheer stupidity.
  35. LeoF.
    Jan 17, 2006
    6
    3 hours long. For Pete's sake, (pun intended) why did it have to be 3 hours long? If it were 2 hours it would have been fantastic. Sorry, Peter. I absolutely loved, LOVED RotK and even that film was too long. Now this bloted ego trip. Will someone down his studio line reign him in? Economy in stoytelling is just as important as the other aspects in filmmaking. If Peter has the 3 hours long. For Pete's sake, (pun intended) why did it have to be 3 hours long? If it were 2 hours it would have been fantastic. Sorry, Peter. I absolutely loved, LOVED RotK and even that film was too long. Now this bloted ego trip. Will someone down his studio line reign him in? Economy in stoytelling is just as important as the other aspects in filmmaking. If Peter has the cojones to release a special edition 2-hour version DVD I guarantee it will sell. Expand
  36. J.S.
    Jan 17, 2006
    4
    My problem with silly action movies is I can't shut my brain off. If you are a person that can flip a switch and then accept anything shown to you then you may love the movie. I have no problems with fantasy, I enjoyed LOTR but because it was written by a good author who cared about things making sense. People who like Kong will just call me a nitpicking, but here are a few things My problem with silly action movies is I can't shut my brain off. If you are a person that can flip a switch and then accept anything shown to you then you may love the movie. I have no problems with fantasy, I enjoyed LOTR but because it was written by a good author who cared about things making sense. People who like Kong will just call me a nitpicking, but here are a few things that required you to ignore reason - A hundred pound woman would not pull a steel ladder off a building if one of its harnasses broke, an enormous ape who can climb huge buildings would not be stopped by a stone wall that's only about twice his size, native people do not disappear after you deal with them, women do not give up their whole lives to live on an island with pets, a trained ship crew probably doesn't freak out as soon as they see fog, if machine guns and rifles do absolutely nothing to an animal then plane guns shouldn't do a huge amount more, a t rex's jaws should break skin of most any living creature, a director would probably allow the writer to write somewhere other than in a cage, brontosaurus's never existed, what do tons of huge bugs regularly eat to support themselves when people aren't there and so on. Besides these issues, the movie also strikes of human vanity. We are so beautiful even other species should want to sleep with us? And if you kong as a metaphor for the beast in us all or whatever else you'd like, then most of the movie is entirely superflouos. Actuall, however the movie is taken it is about an hour and a half too long. Scene after scene goes on for too long, often to the point where apathy set in. The bugs were scary at first, then 5 minutes later when they were still wriggling and tossing the bugs stopped being scary. The end was sad, then 8 minutes later of the same thing I was just checking my watch. Expand
  37. TerriS.
    Jan 2, 2006
    4
    A movie of excesses; twice as long as it needed to be.
  38. RyanM.
    Jan 21, 2006
    5
    ***SPOILERS... although really, if your not familiar with the story, that's a little odd*** Well, it was pretty, and I can't really fault the acting, but I found the plot a little hard to swallow. Maybe I just don't like the King Kong story; I don't know, I've never seen the original. The movie relies on you feeling sorry for Kong, but that's a little hard to ***SPOILERS... although really, if your not familiar with the story, that's a little odd*** Well, it was pretty, and I can't really fault the acting, but I found the plot a little hard to swallow. Maybe I just don't like the King Kong story; I don't know, I've never seen the original. The movie relies on you feeling sorry for Kong, but that's a little hard to do while he's rampaging through New York city killing innocent civilians. All that went through my head was "Let me get this straight... we're supposed to like this creature just because there's one girl that he didn't kill?" They draw out his death to the point of ridiculousness, too. Maybe if they'd succeeded in making me feel bad about it I wouldn't have minded, but it ended up more of a "Alright, I get it. It's very sad that the giant homocidal gorilla is going to die. Just freaking kill him already" kind of thing. Not to mention that he died in a rather... familiar way. Sitting in the theatre, watching KK lose his grip, slide backward and fall to his death I was reminded that I was watching a Peter Jackson movie and had to restrain my urge to yell "GAAAAAAANDAAAAAAAAALF!!!" in my best Frodo Baggins voice. I don't know if that's how he fell off the building in the original or not, but I still found that pretty funny. That's not the only recycled LOTR element you'll find either. You'll also find the hiding-behind-the-pillar-"Oh good, it's gone."-"Oh shit no, it's on the other side" thing again too. Also, although the scene with the characters running through the dinosaurs' legs isn't really recycled, there are a few ROTK-esque moments. Sorry, but I can't help but think that this shows a lack of originality. The bottom line is that it's not that bad, but I still kind of feel like I've wasted three hours. Along that same wavelength, this movie was far too long. It could very easily have been a two hour movie. Expand
  39. JimJ.
    Jan 3, 2006
    6
    There are some thrilling scenes, but no real sense of cohesiveness that would give the scenes more impact. A lot of the dialogue is pretty bad and Jackson uses that horrible slow motion effect from the begining of Fellowship of the Ring an awful lot in Kong. The movie is too long, and despite what some people say on here it is perfectly fine to dislike a movie when it is longer than it There are some thrilling scenes, but no real sense of cohesiveness that would give the scenes more impact. A lot of the dialogue is pretty bad and Jackson uses that horrible slow motion effect from the begining of Fellowship of the Ring an awful lot in Kong. The movie is too long, and despite what some people say on here it is perfectly fine to dislike a movie when it is longer than it needs to be. That being said, 1930's New York looked great, the dinosaurs were amazing, and most of the actors gave captivating performances, particularly Naomi Watts. Expand
  40. JackY.
    Jan 8, 2006
    4
    This movie was supper repetitive. [Ed: So is that "p".] The whole plot seemed to be about chasing the people for half and hour and then figuring how many ways there are to tear somebody's head off.
  41. MollyT.
    Jan 8, 2006
    5
    You know i thought this had some good acting by Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts. But this movie was very 'lets put these characters in worst case senerio moments and give them more luck than any Irish man could meret.' I found this movie very unrealistic.
  42. masoudb.
    Jan 9, 2006
    6
    Not that impressed.
  43. ChrisU.
    Apr 16, 2006
    6
    I am completely surprised that this movie has garnered such praise. Yes, the visual effects (particularly Kong) are amazing. If for no other reason, see this movie because of the effects. But even then there are times when the dinosaurs and humans that are running around or beneath them (and drop-kicking them in some scenes) don't appear to be existing in the same area. They instead I am completely surprised that this movie has garnered such praise. Yes, the visual effects (particularly Kong) are amazing. If for no other reason, see this movie because of the effects. But even then there are times when the dinosaurs and humans that are running around or beneath them (and drop-kicking them in some scenes) don't appear to be existing in the same area. They instead look like they have been layered in (which they have) on screen and the end product ends up looking more silly than convincing. Unfortunately, the movie just becomes FAR too outlandish as the rescue party makes their way deeper into the jungles of Skull Island. I mean I understand that one must consider to let a few logical things slide in a movie like this, but watch the fight between Kong and the Tyrannosaurus Rexes or how Bruce Baxter swings in like Tarzan and saves the surviving rescue party members. There is no possible way either of those events, or many others in this three hour epic for that matter, would have transpired even remotely close to what we saw on screen. Couple that with sappy dialoge between much of the crew members (well I'll just say it...pretty much the entire cast) and Jack Black absolutely falling on his face attempting to play a role that requires much more emotional depth and acting range than he is capable of, and this movie becomes bogged down in its own grandiosity. To bad, because it's visually stunning and shows flashes of brilliance from director Peter Jackson (the scenes with the natives of Skull Island are downright scary). Ultimately this film is only held up by the fact that Kong and his environment looked so real, even beautiful. As far as dialogue, acting, and plot goes, this film collapses under its own weight. Expand
  44. B.Miller
    Apr 26, 2006
    6
    I was really hoping for much more from Peter Jackson. While some parts were brilliant the filIm just didn't absorb me into the story. Just becuse fantastic special effects can be done relatively easily these days, there is a point when they are overdone. There are just too many occassions when the action didn't seem plausible or real. This sounds odd when talking about about a I was really hoping for much more from Peter Jackson. While some parts were brilliant the filIm just didn't absorb me into the story. Just becuse fantastic special effects can be done relatively easily these days, there is a point when they are overdone. There are just too many occassions when the action didn't seem plausible or real. This sounds odd when talking about about a giant gorilla on an uncharted island but if an audience wants to believe that part, why spoil the fantasy with unrealistic fight sequences and other feats that defy physics or any credible reality? It's as if the budget was so bloated on this movie that they threw everything but the kitchen sink at it. Perhaps if the budget was tighter then some of the silly stuff might never have been made. And, possibly, a better movie may have emerged. Expand
  45. NCoste
    Dec 12, 2005
    6
    Too looooooooooog in parts, especially on the island. It get tiring after a while and I got very impatient for the plot to move on. It could have been a better movie if they spent $50 mil less on special effects and cut the movie by a half hour. That said it is still worthwhile for the good parts--especially the relationship between Kong and The Beauty.
  46. pushbutton
    Dec 14, 2005
    6
    An exercise for Peter Jackson's ego. The monkey looks good enough, but the film is too long and filled with plot devices and character developments that fail to engage the audience or move the story along.
  47. JudyT.
    Dec 15, 2005
    4
    Too ridiculous for words. A movie for 13 year old boys. I was hoping that Ann would throw herself off the Empire State Building so that she could avoid another cheesy close up. Any body can make aCGI character, look at the Hulk but you have to breathe more than life into it. You have to get the audience into the movie and Pete fails to do that with this story.
  48. SheilaM.
    Dec 16, 2005
    5
    Pointless, long-winded and tiresome remake that replaces all the charm of the 1933 original with an orgy of indulgent, redundant CGI "magic". Jack D, you just summed up the redundancy of internet 'reviews' by telling people who didn't like KONG 2005 to 'Go ahead! make a better movie...". You mean, i can't voice an honest opinion of this movie until someone gives Pointless, long-winded and tiresome remake that replaces all the charm of the 1933 original with an orgy of indulgent, redundant CGI "magic". Jack D, you just summed up the redundancy of internet 'reviews' by telling people who didn't like KONG 2005 to 'Go ahead! make a better movie...". You mean, i can't voice an honest opinion of this movie until someone gives me $200 million dollars to see if I can do better? Using the same logic, you shouldn't criticize INDEPENDENT DAY unless you make a better movie. good luck! Expand
  49. ChrisV.
    Dec 16, 2005
    4
    Some of the movie is amazing to see but most of it is either silly, stupid or unnecessary. Even some of the special effects were bad, especially the dinosaur chase scene where its pretty easy to see when the men were replaced with cgi characters. There are subplots that slow the story, especially the one about the 18 boy learning about manhood. How did that fit in and why did we have to Some of the movie is amazing to see but most of it is either silly, stupid or unnecessary. Even some of the special effects were bad, especially the dinosaur chase scene where its pretty easy to see when the men were replaced with cgi characters. There are subplots that slow the story, especially the one about the 18 boy learning about manhood. How did that fit in and why did we have to sit through at least 20 minutes of that nonsense. I don't know if Peter Jackson has been to the top of the Empire State Building in the winter but I have and you wouldn't want to be up there in just a flimsy dress. Has Mr. Jackson heard of whiplash? Naomi Watts should have been dead 5 minutes after Kong grabbed her and started running. That would have saved us 90 minutes of torture. The only two redeeming things about this film are Jack Black and the last 20 minutes which are breathtaking even if silly. Expand
  50. GeoffB.
    Dec 16, 2005
    6
    We have 200 million to spend! Let's see, we'll spend a fair bit on the screenplay?...... nah! On actors? ....whatever. On CGI?.....oh, yes indeedy! I fear that Peter Jackson went to the dark side and relied heavily on CGI, attempting to mask the fact that his movie has no soul. God help us if he turns into another George Lucas, offering us high-tech banality.
  51. RoboRocker
    Dec 17, 2005
    5
    No, it's not a masterpiece of a film. No it doesn't deserve a 10...anyone who would give it such a high vote is simply amused by the simplest illusions. I agree the FXs are nice, but even that has it's share of problems. There are times when it looks too CGI in scenes where, frankly, they didn't even need to use CGI to begin with. Also, I couldn't help but see No, it's not a masterpiece of a film. No it doesn't deserve a 10...anyone who would give it such a high vote is simply amused by the simplest illusions. I agree the FXs are nice, but even that has it's share of problems. There are times when it looks too CGI in scenes where, frankly, they didn't even need to use CGI to begin with. Also, I couldn't help but see exposure differences between some of the CGI and real objects. To the point of wondering if this was farmed out to the lowest bidder. I don't feel this movie is ground-breaking in visuals, but they do use a lot of mock computer animated bling bling to get your attention. Kong leaps around at times as though he's a frog. A terrible oversight on the part of the animators. This flick is ok at best, but don't go believing any reviews that suggest it's a masterpiece. Expand
  52. PhilS.
    Dec 17, 2005
    4
    One of the whiniest, cheesiest movies of it's genre. Stunningly realistic animation is the only positive aspect of the film. The action sequences are too numerous, too long, and just plain boring. The non-action sequences are laughably sentimental.
  53. J.N.
    Dec 17, 2005
    6
    A bit too long, a bit too much CGI, a bit too much a lot of things. This movie, although entertaining and emotional, makes the old saying "too much of a good thing" very true. Although much of the special effects were very well used, some parts, like with the dinosaurs falling on top of each other and the giant leeches, you just have to laugh. Enjoyable, but no masterpiece.
  54. Stephen
    Dec 18, 2005
    5
    My goodness this was a long film. They could have easily taken 30-60 minutes out of the film in editing and made the end product much better. The first two hours in Skull Island just seemed to drag on forever. Many of the scenes were unnecessary and seemingly put in to display the amazing visual effects. Things start to pick up only after they arrive back in NY. Everything from that point My goodness this was a long film. They could have easily taken 30-60 minutes out of the film in editing and made the end product much better. The first two hours in Skull Island just seemed to drag on forever. Many of the scenes were unnecessary and seemingly put in to display the amazing visual effects. Things start to pick up only after they arrive back in NY. Everything from that point forward is film making at its best. Expand
  55. LucyR.
    Dec 18, 2005
    4
    So here we are, with another underwhelming remake of a classic movie, from another high profile director. No, this isn't Spielberg's War of the ZzzzZZZzzz, this is King Kong by Lucas 2.0. The dialogue is weak. The plot points from time to time make little sense. Worst of all, the flick is just too long. What could have been cut? Let's not forget we already have a perfect 90 So here we are, with another underwhelming remake of a classic movie, from another high profile director. No, this isn't Spielberg's War of the ZzzzZZZzzz, this is King Kong by Lucas 2.0. The dialogue is weak. The plot points from time to time make little sense. Worst of all, the flick is just too long. What could have been cut? Let's not forget we already have a perfect 90 minute cut of the story. The flick's first act just doesn't work. For any other movie it would have been fantastic, but with the knowledge of Kong just right around the corner (as seen in countless trailers, unlike how Spielberg hid the shark / dinosaurs / aliens), it just all falls apart. Pass. Expand
  56. GregS.
    Dec 18, 2005
    6
    What a disappointment. Even the 1933 version had a better story line. Sure the effects are amazing, but shouldn't they be? Terrible waste of energy. Bring back Jessica and Fay.
  57. LeszekK.
    Dec 18, 2005
    4
    I liked the acting except maybe for Jack Black. I couldn't get passed the fact that it was Jack Black in order to see the character played by him. It reminds me of Tom Cruise's syndrome. I thought the middle part of the film, the one on Skull Island dragged and was gratuitous. It was like Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, and a trailer for a video game. Peter Jackson indulged I liked the acting except maybe for Jack Black. I couldn't get passed the fact that it was Jack Black in order to see the character played by him. It reminds me of Tom Cruise's syndrome. I thought the middle part of the film, the one on Skull Island dragged and was gratuitous. It was like Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, and a trailer for a video game. Peter Jackson indulged and really bored me. The action sequences with the dinasaurs and insects had little thematically to do with the King Kong story. It really detracted from the main story. It's amazing how brain numbing Jackson's films can be. I enjoyed the New York and ship scenes. Expand
  58. RussellP.
    Dec 19, 2005
    5
    Way too long. The length of this film makes it lose some of it s flavor. The King Kong CG was incredible, but some of the other CG stunk. And, while a 25 foot gorilla is hard to believe, there are some things in the movie that are way out there (like humans punching dinosaurs in the face and jungle vines holding the weight of a t-rex). I felt frustrated more than amazed after watching Way too long. The length of this film makes it lose some of it s flavor. The King Kong CG was incredible, but some of the other CG stunk. And, while a 25 foot gorilla is hard to believe, there are some things in the movie that are way out there (like humans punching dinosaurs in the face and jungle vines holding the weight of a t-rex). I felt frustrated more than amazed after watching this film. It needed to be about 45 minutes shorter. It drags. Expand
  59. SeamusS.
    Dec 19, 2005
    6
    Okay, It Was Just That, Okay. It Left Me Feeling Sad Towards The End (Not IN The Way Clearly Intended by the tearfest). I Wish I Loved it, I wanted to, i just couldnt.
  60. HopeI.
    Dec 19, 2005
    6
    Everything was perfect - except for the major flaw in every scene - it was too damn long !!! For god's sake - we get it already. What is wrong with this director - this was his same problem in Lord of the Rings. Back and forth on the same faces showing the same emotion....OK WE GET IT. My entire family - including two 13 year old boys both felt the same way.
  61. SueD.
    Dec 19, 2005
    5
    Great effects muddled with excessive, self-indulgent, down-right silly action sequences. Good acting all the way around, until Jack Black plagues the screen with his amateurish bumbling. (Stick to slapstick and the bi-polar comedy Jack; you may succeed in hiding your lack of talent). While a compelling fable, the characters are too flat for the story's attempt at depth. I mean Great effects muddled with excessive, self-indulgent, down-right silly action sequences. Good acting all the way around, until Jack Black plagues the screen with his amateurish bumbling. (Stick to slapstick and the bi-polar comedy Jack; you may succeed in hiding your lack of talent). While a compelling fable, the characters are too flat for the story's attempt at depth. I mean really, a man removes insects from another man with a tommy gun flailing about in his arms. Peter Jackson needed to choose a genre and stick to it. Expand
  62. RicardoC.
    Dec 20, 2005
    6
    Not a bad movie, but overrated in every sense. I just didn't feel that it was THAT good of a movie. Peter Jackson is still one of my favorite directors, but the only thing I really really liked were the expressive eyes of King Kong and the nice vistas of the Skull Island!!
  63. Veejay
    Dec 23, 2005
    4
    Looked great but story lacked and many of the action sequences were WAY too long, kind of like an adolescent fantasy...loved Lord of the Rings, but this one was a yawn.
  64. BillyM.
    Dec 27, 2005
    4
    In the core of the movie is the relationship between a beautifull blonde and a giant gorilla. if you are able to take that mighty leap of suspension of belief better than the writters and poor naomi watts, you'll enjoy this enormously flawed technical tour-de-force.
  65. EdwardS.
    Dec 28, 2005
    6
    6-star film with an 8-star film swallowed up inside it. Apart from wretched excess running potentially winning action sequences into the ground, the current release desperately needs: 1. An intermission right after the 'spider pit' sequence; and 2. A (much) better score - Bernard Hermann would have put audiences' fatigued bums right on the edges of their seats with the same 6-star film with an 8-star film swallowed up inside it. Apart from wretched excess running potentially winning action sequences into the ground, the current release desperately needs: 1. An intermission right after the 'spider pit' sequence; and 2. A (much) better score - Bernard Hermann would have put audiences' fatigued bums right on the edges of their seats with the same visuals... Expand
  66. BenC.
    Dec 28, 2005
    6
    Mixed bag, and that's a disappointment from Mr. Jackson. There are very effective moments in this movie (the T-Rex brawl, many of the Ann/Kong moments, and the savages were down-right terrifying) but there are equally ridiculous moments which sap the validity of the story. For me, the first of these occurs when the brontos stampede over our heroes... it's just flat-out stupid Mixed bag, and that's a disappointment from Mr. Jackson. There are very effective moments in this movie (the T-Rex brawl, many of the Ann/Kong moments, and the savages were down-right terrifying) but there are equally ridiculous moments which sap the validity of the story. For me, the first of these occurs when the brontos stampede over our heroes... it's just flat-out stupid that anyone could survive that, not to mention some of the WORST effects seen in a long time. Sure, sure some will say 'movies are about fun and checking your brain at the door' but that's misguided; they're about making the unbelievable believable, and this movie disappointed me in that regard once we get into some very ingenuous plot decisions on Skull island. Also I found Jack Black somewhat disappointing, or rather Jack Black's recurring wide-eyed stares... cuz that's really all there is of him. Expand
  67. VisheshC.
    Dec 29, 2005
    6
    Unecessarily Long. Exaggerated even for a science fiction flick. Although the effects and the sequence make up for the abruptness of the movie.
  68. ThomasH.
    Dec 31, 2005
    4
    Ulp, it might have been Ok as a B-Movie, but this was just violent mindless pretentious schlock. The Characters were just 2d Peter Jackson has done a George Lucas and lost his mind, making something that could be good, bad. All might have been Ok, had it been an hour shorter, but no forget it.
  69. TimD.
    Jan 12, 2006
    5
    Hopelessly overlong. Kong himself is superb and there's some touching scenes between ape and woman, but nearly everything else is pure spectacle. Jack Black brings nothing but a snidily raised eyebrow to his role; he spends the whole film conspicuously trying to act, which gets in the way of any characterization, of which there is virtually none anyway. Which is a little odd, because Hopelessly overlong. Kong himself is superb and there's some touching scenes between ape and woman, but nearly everything else is pure spectacle. Jack Black brings nothing but a snidily raised eyebrow to his role; he spends the whole film conspicuously trying to act, which gets in the way of any characterization, of which there is virtually none anyway. Which is a little odd, because it makes you wonder just what it is that this film spends 3 hours trying to do. Expand
  70. DaveB.
    Jan 14, 2006
    5
    Could have been a whole lot shorter (especially the Skull Island segment). The part with the bugs and the dinosaur stampede made no sense as to the plot of the movie. Felt like the whole movies purpose was to market merchandise. Kong looked fantastic though!
  71. JulienC.
    Apr 28, 2006
    5
    King Kong is the perfect representation of how dry hollywood is becoming: not that it's good or bad, it's neutral - it's like a well oiled machine that would produce air, like a recipe that produces water: everything follows the hollywood path that secures a certain number of dollars for the shareholders. the only thing that is good in this movie is what the artists have King Kong is the perfect representation of how dry hollywood is becoming: not that it's good or bad, it's neutral - it's like a well oiled machine that would produce air, like a recipe that produces water: everything follows the hollywood path that secures a certain number of dollars for the shareholders. the only thing that is good in this movie is what the artists have come up with: environments notably. special effects are good of course but is this a surprise? this movie is boring as hell until they meet with the natives. the cast is over-acting all movie long, only the writer is OK. i hope the guys who made this movie give this comment a read: PLEASE stop making safe movies, take some risks; work on the actors' lines deeper, produce the emotion don't just buy it... Expand
  72. AverageTome
    May 11, 2006
    4
    This was not what I expected. To add a cool effect to this movie, i would have made it in B&W. While the special effects to this movie were stellar, i found it annoying that Kong was first introduced nearly halfway into the movie. The first 45 minutes are just a waste of time to watch and not really that important to the real action and body of the story. (If you get the DVD, just skip to This was not what I expected. To add a cool effect to this movie, i would have made it in B&W. While the special effects to this movie were stellar, i found it annoying that Kong was first introduced nearly halfway into the movie. The first 45 minutes are just a waste of time to watch and not really that important to the real action and body of the story. (If you get the DVD, just skip to the Skull Island scene.) The fact that Naomi Watts had a dialogue of basically screaming for the entirety of the movie set me off as well because she is a fairly good actor in reality. Some of it was pretty gruesome which was not what i expected at all. (Such as the man getting eaten alive by the leeches before being brought down to a watery death... and the villagers.) Jack Black was totally out of character and I did not enjoy that at all. As soon as i found out that he was going to be doing the 2006 KCA's i knew that his career was going to be officially over after doing that and this. The animation and production quality are my only two plus sides to this movie. Get the DVD because while not the greatest on earth, it is still average and sort of worth buying. Expand
  73. JohnP.
    Dec 14, 2005
    5
    A bloated, miscast, hi-res xerox of a classic that only expands on it's source in length. Jackson is too timid to add anything to the mix but more dino's and CG fx. Is he capable of producing anything else? I doubt it. Unlike Orson Welles, who was felt like a kid in a toy store making CITIZEN KANE, Peter Jackson is a bull in a China shop.
  74. DanielH.
    Dec 14, 2005
    5
    Overlong, flabby script and poor CGI. The most disappointing film of the year. Also can someone please explain to me why I should have sympathy with a giant ape who goes around kidnapping and murdering women and generally being unpleasant to us humans.
  75. GeraldB.
    Dec 15, 2005
    4
    KONG 2005 hit all the right notes for a summer blockbuster, not surprising given the enormous budget and crew. What is surprising (and depressing) is the sheer number of users who are rating this a 10. If you rated it 10 out of 10- i'm assuming that the film is absolutely the greatest film you've ever seen in your entire life. Ever. I'd love to see these users 'Top 10 KONG 2005 hit all the right notes for a summer blockbuster, not surprising given the enormous budget and crew. What is surprising (and depressing) is the sheer number of users who are rating this a 10. If you rated it 10 out of 10- i'm assuming that the film is absolutely the greatest film you've ever seen in your entire life. Ever. I'd love to see these users 'Top 10 Films of All Time' lists. I can imagine most of consist entirely of Hollywood films made within the past 20 years. Maybe it's time al lyou "10" raters expanded your cinema horizons a bit. Calling KONG 2005 a "masterpeice' is like calling a Big Mac the pinnacle of gourmet, the epicurean peak. KONG's a super-supersize portion of popcorn in a shiny box. Nothing less, certainly nothing more. Expand
  76. AlanD.
    Dec 15, 2005
    6
    This movie is in the same vein as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy - great special effects but overly long. The story didn't pull me in emotionally and this made some of the corny dialogue even harder to bear. I give it a six just for the Ty Rex vs. Kong battle...
  77. JeffD.
    Dec 16, 2005
    4
    Overy long, too full of endless chase scenes (albeit with prehistoric monsters) and a script that pokes fun at itself so much that it takes you out of the story and makes you know you're watching a film. Special effects are fine, but, really, who cares? The story of intimacy between the ape and the girl is well worth pursuing, but is given short shrift in this much much much too long Overy long, too full of endless chase scenes (albeit with prehistoric monsters) and a script that pokes fun at itself so much that it takes you out of the story and makes you know you're watching a film. Special effects are fine, but, really, who cares? The story of intimacy between the ape and the girl is well worth pursuing, but is given short shrift in this much much much too long movie. It's got a good 1.5 hours worth of movie and the rest is just loud but dull filler. Expand
  78. WillisW.
    Dec 16, 2005
    5
    Over rated and excessive. Should have been an hour and a half, or should have used the 200 million to improve education in Texas. The best parts are the scenes in New York, without the Gorilla. Jackson can tell a story, but he's all fangoria instead of naturalist. This would have been a much better film if he'd had a biologist mentality instead of a zombie movie. The dripping Over rated and excessive. Should have been an hour and a half, or should have used the 200 million to improve education in Texas. The best parts are the scenes in New York, without the Gorilla. Jackson can tell a story, but he's all fangoria instead of naturalist. This would have been a much better film if he'd had a biologist mentality instead of a zombie movie. The dripping orcs from LotR return as savage natives, definitely the low point of the three hour spectacle. Expand
  79. BrianO.W.
    Dec 17, 2005
    5
    Like watching over someone's shoulder as they played a videogame, KONG is perfect entertainment for 21st century's visually overloaded "switch-yr-brain-off-and -enjoy-the-ride" audiences. I'm getting far more entertainment out of the comments posted here and I hope Jackson hires some of the users on this forum to write his next brain-dead comedy. According to them if you Like watching over someone's shoulder as they played a videogame, KONG is perfect entertainment for 21st century's visually overloaded "switch-yr-brain-off-and -enjoy-the-ride" audiences. I'm getting far more entertainment out of the comments posted here and I hope Jackson hires some of the users on this forum to write his next brain-dead comedy. According to them if you don't rate this film a 10 you're 'pretensious", or "a snob", who must "hate movies' or didn't actually even watch it before posting a review(!!). Apparently a 3 hour duration is excusable because there are other movies that are 3 hrs long. It's hard to choose between the funniest comment between John B, who claims this remake would 'genius if it had not been done before" (mind boggling!) or Daniel T who claims that this mega-budget remake of a classic (in itself an indication of the banal recycling endemic of current cinema) is somehow an "...antidote to the banality of modern cinema'! Oh God, LOL! Expand
  80. ChrisP.
    Dec 18, 2005
    5
    A movie made for children and hypnotized simpletons. It's mystical escapism. If you liked Lord of the Rings, and the new Star Wars movies, and are a sucker for melo-drama, over-used cinematic effects and horrible dialogue, then this movie is for you. Apparently, a lot of people go for that. Everyone believes this movie is genius because Kong and Naomi Watts have a pure, untouchable A movie made for children and hypnotized simpletons. It's mystical escapism. If you liked Lord of the Rings, and the new Star Wars movies, and are a sucker for melo-drama, over-used cinematic effects and horrible dialogue, then this movie is for you. Apparently, a lot of people go for that. Everyone believes this movie is genius because Kong and Naomi Watts have a pure, untouchable relationship, and what happens to Kong is "heartbreaking". If you wanna see Heartbreaking, please, go see a documentary about any third world country. Or read the newspaper. Sorry. No great special effects though. But I'm being facetious. There were about twenty minutes of pretty good scenes, all of them with Kong. And the "tragic love" story was pretty good... But then there was the hour-long introduction. You know how you can tell when Jackson adds things in that weren't in the original? BECAUSE THEY'RE HORRIBLY WRITTEN. And then there's the sub-plots, which are so bad I was literally rolling in the aisles laughing while everyone else was in some sentimental paralysis: "It's not about being brave, little Jimmy, it's about being yourself!" WHAHAHAHA. That's almost as bad as the Matrix's infamous: "Neo--I BELIEVE!" I love movies, I love them so much I can quickly tell when a certain movie is destroying what beauty can be captured with a roll of film. The many close-calls and indifferent cardboard characters in this movie are complete crap. I feel defeated that so many people like this movie, or think that's it's genius. I don't kow what to say to them, except..."you like da shiny tings? Ok, you get more shiny things then!" Expand
  81. JasonA
    Dec 18, 2005
    6
    First off, the movie is fun. So, for anyone to argue over whether some scenes are credible or not is moot. But the writing sucks, and i'll hold Peter Jackson accountable because his name is on the film. Also, Jackson should've trimmed the fat off of this film, it's a little to long. A half hour would suffice. As far as the actors, I hate Jack Black, for some reason he lends First off, the movie is fun. So, for anyone to argue over whether some scenes are credible or not is moot. But the writing sucks, and i'll hold Peter Jackson accountable because his name is on the film. Also, Jackson should've trimmed the fat off of this film, it's a little to long. A half hour would suffice. As far as the actors, I hate Jack Black, for some reason he lends no credibility to the film. I know the role was to supposed to have some humor in it but Black's forte is physical humor this film didn't ask for that. Some of the dialogue is just painful like the scene in the diner between Anne and Black's character. While watching it, I thought John Waters would've been perfect for the role but surely he wouldn't put his name on this film. Overall, Jackson's problems are excessiveness just too much of everything. I will say the Empire State Building scene was great. Expand
  82. JohntheCritic
    Dec 18, 2005
    6
    The movie was slow. Nice special effects. Acting ok to good. Plot had elements that could have been better developed to have a more interesting story especially with the long length of the film. On my personal rating system it was a
  83. ToddG.
    Dec 19, 2005
    4
    I would have given it a 6 were it not for both the heightened expectations and the potential it had. Like a few scenes in LOTR, some brilliant decisions and direction were drowned out either by absurdity or by monotony. Yes, even action sequences can be monotonous when they aren't connected to the plot and go on for too long. There was a story in there, and there were some I would have given it a 6 were it not for both the heightened expectations and the potential it had. Like a few scenes in LOTR, some brilliant decisions and direction were drowned out either by absurdity or by monotony. Yes, even action sequences can be monotonous when they aren't connected to the plot and go on for too long. There was a story in there, and there were some interesting characters. But what was the point of the bugs or the chase scene in NYC? How did anyone know where they were going? etc etc etc. If you're going to try to make a movie with depth, make sure it makes some sort of sense. Peter Jackson must have a split personality, because sometimes his decisions and direction are genius, other times he's a dolt. Expand
  84. JemT.
    Dec 19, 2005
    4
    This is a Peter Jackson wet dream, and an extremely disappointing film. I would recommend NOT seeing it.
  85. RandyP.
    Dec 19, 2005
    6
    I'm sure it's a 9 or a 10 in regards to this film as being a 'remake' but as a film in itself it really is way too long and somewhat boring. The movie completely falls flat in the middle of the confrontation between Kong and the dinosuars. I think that the 1st hour of the movie was excellent but after some time you realize that this film has absolutely nothing left to I'm sure it's a 9 or a 10 in regards to this film as being a 'remake' but as a film in itself it really is way too long and somewhat boring. The movie completely falls flat in the middle of the confrontation between Kong and the dinosuars. I think that the 1st hour of the movie was excellent but after some time you realize that this film has absolutely nothing left to give for another 2 hours. I was really disappointed when I had left the theatre. Expand
  86. EvanS.
    Dec 22, 2005
    5
    What this movie needs is a fewer bugs, less budget and more focus on the engaging story about beauty and the beast. This egofest could have easily been drawn to two hours, but we're forced to wade through the silly and weary build-up aboard the Venture and a trip through Jurassic Park (Hey Jackson, Spielberg took us here already). This movie is designed beautifully and it's What this movie needs is a fewer bugs, less budget and more focus on the engaging story about beauty and the beast. This egofest could have easily been drawn to two hours, but we're forced to wade through the silly and weary build-up aboard the Venture and a trip through Jurassic Park (Hey Jackson, Spielberg took us here already). This movie is designed beautifully and it's almost worth it to see the monkey rip up New York City, but I couldn't help see Jackson as the 800-pound gorilla who tosses his weight around and spending a grotesque sum to make a so-so movie. Expand
  87. BillyS.
    Dec 22, 2005
    5
    Take a classic 1933 film, add a 200 million dollar f/x budget to the same story and characters and what do you get? Jurrasic Park with a monkey. A big, bombastic bore of blockbuster proportions!
  88. LynnW.
    Dec 22, 2005
    4
    I'm a huge Peter Jackson fan, but this movie was exhausting. You just couldn't wait for it to be over. I found myself muttering "Die, already!" for the last half hour.
  89. MichaelW.
    Dec 31, 2005
    4
    An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. Get my drift?
  90. Nov 11, 2011
    6
    I'm honestly not sure how to start this off. First of all, lets get negatives out the way as usual: at over 3 hours long, the film feels bloated and stuffed with a noisy barrage of action sequences. Many of the creatures devised throughout the film (such as the V-rex) seem to go by the theory that 'the bigger it is, the scarier'. The film makes attempts at this cinematic intensity; withI'm honestly not sure how to start this off. First of all, lets get negatives out the way as usual: at over 3 hours long, the film feels bloated and stuffed with a noisy barrage of action sequences. Many of the creatures devised throughout the film (such as the V-rex) seem to go by the theory that 'the bigger it is, the scarier'. The film makes attempts at this cinematic intensity; with varying degrees of success ranging from surprising to plain flat. The action scenes are often disjointed and feel as if they are all competing to see who can make the most thrilling scene. Anyhow, rant over. The visual effects are admittitly very stunning, though sometimes overused. The acting is mostly solid and the underlying story isn't too bad, although the second act seems a complete jumbled narrative mess.
    Overall, this is still a resonably made film that still manages to maintain its intensity and shock-and-awe moments when it needs to. Definately worth a look.
    Expand
Metascore
81

Universal acclaim - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 32 out of 39
  2. Negative: 1 out of 39
  1. Reviewed by: Devin Gordon
    90
    A surprisingly tender, even heartbreaking, film. Like the original, it's a tragic tale of beauty and the beast.
  2. What a movie! This is how the medium seduced us originally.
  3. One of the wonders of the holiday season.