King Kong

User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1346 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. CalebD.
    Dec 30, 2005
    10
    This is the best movie ever. Action, suspense, drama, the whole lot. For the people who say its too long, you dont know movies. You were not watching the movie, you were watching your watch. Be in the moment of the movie. You, critics, get in for free, but we have to pay up to $10. I think we got our moneys worth. Once again, best movie ever.
  2. PopechonR.
    Dec 30, 2005
    10
    Bastante buena, lastima que es PG RATED 13 en E.U. porque ganaria mas dinero y merece ser vista por todos, pero su calidad es genial en todo!, Peter jack, es el mejor filmmaker de la decada!. thats all.
  3. GarethR
    Dec 31, 2005
    10
    It is Great, see it . . you will love it, i did, it was great.
  4. 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.
  5. Mike
    Dec 30, 2005
    1
    I started to like the movie for the first 30 mins, and then it became very very bad. The fighting between king kong and 3 trex was laughable. The acting is also very very bad, and this is very disappointing because in other films these actors are great!!! Can it be becasue of the bad directing? The only great thing about this movie are the special effects. nothing else.
  6. JasonG.
    Dec 8, 2005
    10
    Saw the premiere. AMAZING!
  7. MarcD.
    Dec 8, 2005
    8
    Wow. I just saw the film at Universal's holiday party, and I'm still a little stunned by it a couple hours later. It's a spectacular film. The first 20-30 minutes drag a little in establishing the story, but once you hit Skull Island, the drama grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go until the final frames. Kong is amazing. Not for a second did I pause to think Wow. I just saw the film at Universal's holiday party, and I'm still a little stunned by it a couple hours later. It's a spectacular film. The first 20-30 minutes drag a little in establishing the story, but once you hit Skull Island, the drama grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go until the final frames. Kong is amazing. Not for a second did I pause to think about him as a CGI creation. And if you're at all a fan of Naomi Watts....wow....just see it. The action is intense, it's thick with genuine emotion, and I actually had a tough time not tossing my cookies during the final sequence. Vertigo anyone?? I can't give it a 10 because it's not an original story, but I give Peter Jackson the ultimate respect for doing amazing things with this classic story. It's a must see. Expand
  8. TomR
    Jan 11, 2006
    10
    This is just great movie making. I loved it.
  9. TrainerFred
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    Peter Jackson couldn't train a mouse to eat cheese after watching this garbage. Over three hours long and about three hours should have been left on the cutting room floor. Garbage in is garbage out. Awful.
  10. Monster
    Jan 11, 2006
    10
    Fascinating movie, I want on Dvd yet. My score? 10
  11. mikej.
    Jan 12, 2006
    10
    It was the best of all time.my full family loved it.we love ya peter jackson.
  12. jodi
    Jan 12, 2006
    10
    Excellent. incomparable. collasal. entertaining .jaw-dropping.
  13. 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
  14. RubenB.
    Jan 12, 2006
    10
    My favorite since LOTR Return of the King, excelent and fantastic!.
  15. edwardv.
    Jan 12, 2006
    10
    Es una de las mejores que he visto del genero de accion, suspenso, fantasia, y ademas tiene cierto nivel de drama, buenisima.
  16. Trudy
    Jan 13, 2006
    1
    Other than the excellent CGI done without a script to go with it, the movie just falls off a cliff and dies. Simply awful.
  17. MarcoD.
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    I cannot believe the amount of negative reviews this movie is getting! Take my advice: go see this movie. I'm quite confident you'll like it. I found it amazing. Too many people are saying stuff like: too long, stupid action scenes, blah blah blah. I say this: yes, it is long, but it goes by faster than you'd think, mainly because it's such an absorbing experience. The I cannot believe the amount of negative reviews this movie is getting! Take my advice: go see this movie. I'm quite confident you'll like it. I found it amazing. Too many people are saying stuff like: too long, stupid action scenes, blah blah blah. I say this: yes, it is long, but it goes by faster than you'd think, mainly because it's such an absorbing experience. The action scenes are amazing and must be seen on the big screen to be appreciated. The special FX are amazing! Go see this movie. Expand
  18. 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!
  19. Borjha
    Jan 14, 2006
    10
    For my family and me this precious movie is the most amazing and enchanting, I would invite with my money all my friends to see it, because no one should loose the opportunity of enjoy it.
  20. GrantN.
    Jan 16, 2006
    10
    This is what movies are all about. The romance, the action, the drama, the excitement, its all here and shown excellantly. Peter Jackson is a fantastic filmaker and do not listen to anyone who says this movie is too long.
  21. ChrisC.
    Jan 16, 2006
    2
    Did I see the same movie? What a bloated, self-indulgent, clumsy pile of...well...you get the idea. Laughable dialog. Shots and plots devices stolen from LOTR and Jurassic Park. The relationship between Watts and the monkey was moving, but lost in three hours of leaden cliche.
  22. LittleSmurf
    Jan 16, 2006
    10
    Long?, holes?, maybe you must see the extended version by P. Jackson, but It would be longer, but I want to see it, cause I have time to enjoy the good Art of 3, 4 or more hours, I love Kong, I love Movies.
  23. KarryD.
    Jan 17, 2006
    9
    Kong plays perfectly. A+ for realism, even though we're looking at a giant ape, the creature is captivating and believably human. Even the child like darling of Naomi Watts works to the advantage of the cast. Jack Black steals the show, expect for the last line, which although part of the original screenplay seemed contrived and out of place. Someone else should have said it. It is Kong plays perfectly. A+ for realism, even though we're looking at a giant ape, the creature is captivating and believably human. Even the child like darling of Naomi Watts works to the advantage of the cast. Jack Black steals the show, expect for the last line, which although part of the original screenplay seemed contrived and out of place. Someone else should have said it. It is possible to nit-pick the the details to death, but alas, suspension of ones disbelief in not that hard when the lights are down and Kong is on the screen. Expand
  24. Fabrizzio
    Jan 21, 2006
    10
    Tottu la vita esperanto a filme como este.
  25. Castleforkingkong
    Jan 21, 2006
    10
    An amazing ride, an Spectacular journey, a Stunning adventure, susprises, love, drama...the full package.
  26. Ironik
    Jan 21, 2006
    0
    Disaster. How could Jackson make such a silly film. It is nice that he can play with a computer but that does not make a good movie.
  27. SaketR.
    Mar 18, 2006
    9
    A wonderfully made film. The scenes in New York were really splendid and although the jungle fights were a little passe, the emotional quota of the story more than made up for that. Visuals were spectacular and Kong and Darrow swooped home in an acting triumph.
  28. SEvans
    Mar 31, 2006
    3
    I'm giving Kong a 3 for wasting 3 hours of my time. Brutal.
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. SamM.
    May 24, 2006
    10
    Very nice storyline and CGI interaction better then its original counterpart of old.
  32. FrancoN.
    Oct 24, 2007
    3
    Like the big ape himself, this movie was bloated and flabby. They could have at least cut 45 minutes out of it.
  33. MattY.
    Feb 11, 2007
    3
    The most amazing thing about King Kong is its consistency. This film delivers something genuinely idiotic every 10-15 seconds. After 3 hours of horrible dialogue, flat stock characers, and implausible action scenes, my throat was sore from scoffing. Generally, I would not waste my time railing about a Hollywood action movie.. but the amount of MONEY dumped into this movie makes the result The most amazing thing about King Kong is its consistency. This film delivers something genuinely idiotic every 10-15 seconds. After 3 hours of horrible dialogue, flat stock characers, and implausible action scenes, my throat was sore from scoffing. Generally, I would not waste my time railing about a Hollywood action movie.. but the amount of MONEY dumped into this movie makes the result more profane than the typical big-budget drivel. Man, you could change the world with $300,000,000... or you could make a few bucks and lower the worlds collective IQ.. Great choice Peter. Expand
  34. Soco
    Feb 28, 2007
    10
    Excellent movie. Very intense and thrilling.
  35. williamj.
    Dec 11, 2005
    10
    WOW!!.....what an asstonishing movie. the best special effects i have ever sceene. and the empire state building was truly amazing. i feel that every person should see this movie immediatley. GREAT, GREAT, GREAT film. peter jackson has done it yet again!
  36. MatthewS.
    Dec 12, 2005
    10
    A completely jaw-dropping, stupendous film.
  37. BigG.
    Dec 13, 2005
    8
    To Bob p. When you watch a scifi/fantasy or read one of them book, you aren't suppose to diagnose it for thing that isn't real. It's call suspension of disbelief. It's like Armageddon, if it wasn't for that part where they talk to each other in space, it would have been a movie worth a 8 to 9 rating.
  38. JohnH.
    Dec 14, 2005
    0
    This is just bad. Mr. Jackson has failed us again.
  39. MikeLovesAvrilLavigne
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Spectacular - everyone clapped at the end of the movie - and you NEVER get that in Australia. Absolutely brilliant.
  40. 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.
  41. ChrisT.
    Dec 14, 2005
    7
    There's a really great two-hour movie in there somewhere.
  42. Wongit
    Dec 14, 2005
    9
    Simply astonishing. this movie is amazing. great visual effects great everyhting, i was dazzled by this film.
  43. Aaron
    Dec 14, 2005
    9
    Sensational entertainment. Jackson really outdid himself here. I think it's one of the rare times the remake betters the original film, seriously. Yes, the film does have its flaws. A little trimming here and there would have helped immensly, but why quibble when a film is this entertaining. Jackson's love for the original film is quite apparent because of the care he has given Sensational entertainment. Jackson really outdid himself here. I think it's one of the rare times the remake betters the original film, seriously. Yes, the film does have its flaws. A little trimming here and there would have helped immensly, but why quibble when a film is this entertaining. Jackson's love for the original film is quite apparent because of the care he has given his own Kong. Speaking of which, Kong may be the single greatest piece of FX work in film history right now. WETA did an amazing job. Not just with the gorilla, but with all of the FX. There's just one astonishing set piece after another. One complaint that I've been hearing is how slow the first hour is. Not at all. I think that deliberate buildup is cruicial to the film. Maybe some of the scenes on the boat don't quite work, but I like how Jackson slowly builds up the suspense leading to Skull Island. And when they finally do reach the place, the film moves to a whole new level. From that point on, it just rocks. Intense, exciting, and at times quite moving, Jackson's King Kong is the first 'event' film in a long time that acutally lived up. Sure to nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. NOTE: A few scenes may be too intense for very young children. Basically, if you know what your kid can handle, by all means take them. Expand
  44. Ben
    Dec 14, 2005
    3
    I know I have to suspend a lot of disbelief for a movie like King Kong, but this viewer and his partner walked out of this film laughing and shaking our heads in amazement at how bad this movie was. Being a completist is the only thing that kept us watching all 187 minutes of this film. Act 2 (on the island) is just a rehash of Jurassic Park with many of the effects done more poorly than I know I have to suspend a lot of disbelief for a movie like King Kong, but this viewer and his partner walked out of this film laughing and shaking our heads in amazement at how bad this movie was. Being a completist is the only thing that kept us watching all 187 minutes of this film. Act 2 (on the island) is just a rehash of Jurassic Park with many of the effects done more poorly than that 12 year old film. Ex: Extraneous chase scenes with humans running between the legs of dinosaurs as they are all being chased by velociraptor type creatures (that also run in between the dinosaur's legs) while the ledge that everyone is running on is crumbling under foot. Not just a few yards, but for 5 minutes! This is just ONE of the numerous inexplicable chase/fight scenes that detract from the core story line. And don Expand
  45. Fantasy
    Dec 14, 2005
    2
    Where to begin? Naomi Watts is lovable and darling. What more can I say? The CGI for King Kong is second to none. He and Naomi were the best actors on the set. As for the movie, the suspense of the story is ruined because we all know the story of Beauty and The Beast vis-a-vis King Kong. Been there done that. The movie is three excruciating hours long. The first hour is so slow that you Where to begin? Naomi Watts is lovable and darling. What more can I say? The CGI for King Kong is second to none. He and Naomi were the best actors on the set. As for the movie, the suspense of the story is ruined because we all know the story of Beauty and The Beast vis-a-vis King Kong. Been there done that. The movie is three excruciating hours long. The first hour is so slow that you start looking at your watch. When they finally arrive at Skull Island the action is non-stop. The brutality of the natives, which appeared racist, is not suitable for young children or preteens. As for the monsters they are gruesome in nature and there is no way that natives could ever survive or want to survive on this prehistoric island. Jack Black and Adrian Brody are so miscast it is laughable. Black is simply awful as Carl Denim and Adrian Brody as Jack Driscoll the love interest for Naomi, well that is the real Beauty and The Beast. There is no chemistry between the two at all. As for when they return to NY circa 1933, the era is captured perfectly. However, it is a shoot em up kill Kong without any dialogue at all. After 45 minutes I was praying for Naomi to either push the Big Ape off of the Empire State Building or to jump herself to let us go home. This movie is an eternity and the hype far exceeds its worthiness. For some strange reason Spielberg and now Jackson get free passes. The CGI is fantastic but thats all there is. Word of mouth will doom this flick after a blockbuster weekend. I wish my review could be brighter but the truth is the truth. I could never sit through this again even if shown for free on TV. Expand
  46. MarvinB.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    The first hour of this film is absolutely great, and it just gets better from then on. I don't see anyone not being blown away by this film.
  47. GabrielG.
    Dec 14, 2005
    9
    Spectacular and tragic. Scary and thrilling. Jackson's "Kong" is an adrenaline-pumping, eye-popping, heart-tugging spectacle of cinematic magic. In one frantic, dyno-mite scene on Skull Island, the director manages to out-Spielberg Spielberg. Watts is fantastic and the big hairy guy makes you feel something you haven't felt for an animated animal since Bambi lost his mom. And Spectacular and tragic. Scary and thrilling. Jackson's "Kong" is an adrenaline-pumping, eye-popping, heart-tugging spectacle of cinematic magic. In one frantic, dyno-mite scene on Skull Island, the director manages to out-Spielberg Spielberg. Watts is fantastic and the big hairy guy makes you feel something you haven't felt for an animated animal since Bambi lost his mom. And just as mind-scrambling as all the beasty CGI is the recreation of New York in the 1930s: The city didn't even look this good in the original "Kong." Expand
  48. 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.
  49. Jake
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    Kevin, funny how everything you dissed about the film is a matter of opinion....if the film was so long, would you really want to spend even more time getting the monkey on a boat and spending another hour on the return voyage.....and as for Donkey Kong, I'd rather play snake verses monkey, even though Donkey Konga can be somewhat entertaining. P.S. the score was a last minute effort Kevin, funny how everything you dissed about the film is a matter of opinion....if the film was so long, would you really want to spend even more time getting the monkey on a boat and spending another hour on the return voyage.....and as for Donkey Kong, I'd rather play snake verses monkey, even though Donkey Konga can be somewhat entertaining. P.S. the score was a last minute effort by James Newton Howard after Howard Shore abondoned his score last minute. Pretty damn good considering he was rushed to finish it! Expand
  50. MattC.
    Dec 15, 2005
    1
    To paraphrase the great film NETWORK, the world is insane. How can a creative team and a studio spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a film, and not one atom of intelligence on the STORY? Films tell stories. Period. Tools such as CGI f/x can enhance a film, but at the end of the day a story must make sense. In the hands of hack directors such as Jackson and John Woo who have the world To paraphrase the great film NETWORK, the world is insane. How can a creative team and a studio spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a film, and not one atom of intelligence on the STORY? Films tell stories. Period. Tools such as CGI f/x can enhance a film, but at the end of the day a story must make sense. In the hands of hack directors such as Jackson and John Woo who have the world fooled, CGI f/x are meant to shut your brain down so you do not notice the insult to your intelligence that is an incoherent story. To Jackson, f/x are a way of saying, "Look at this, look what I can do, people!" All that anyone involved in King King has done is fail at the art of storytelling. You want to see great computer-generated images? Play a video game. When you go to a film you must expect a good story. Raise your standards, people. Until someone can answer how the characters in this film got a ten ton ape on that boat back to NYC, this movie must be called incoherent. At least for this individual, no amount of dinosaurs or giant spiders can numb my brain to that gaping canyon of a plot hole. If such things do not bother you or fail to be detected, you must be a mindless drone conditioned by the press and hype to sweat this dreck. Nice T-rexes, Peter; for those I give you a 1. Expand
  51. JonathanM.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    A joy. I only wish it were longer!
  52. Laura
    Dec 15, 2005
    7
    Really fabulous looking picture. I thought they did a great job making King Kong expressive. However, the pacing was too slow - the movie didn't start really moving until the middle third and the last act was flabby as well. I'd see it again, but only at home where I could fast forward through the boring bits.
  53. Gooch
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    Some wackjobs will try to complain and nitpick..but its not my job to get these losers laid. the movie is great....amaxing...yes, some flaws..but overall, it surpasses the original in every way possible. Matt C...get a hooker.
  54. Don
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    A classic tale of horror and beauty.
  55. MikeT.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    I just want to respond to Matt C, Kevin A, and everyone else that seems to have a problem with the filmaker not showing how they got Kong on the ship & back to New York. What no one has mentioned to these whiners is that the original 1933 version didn't show that either. They showed Kong getting knocked out with gas bombs, and then the next scene jumps to the premiere in New York. I just want to respond to Matt C, Kevin A, and everyone else that seems to have a problem with the filmaker not showing how they got Kong on the ship & back to New York. What no one has mentioned to these whiners is that the original 1933 version didn't show that either. They showed Kong getting knocked out with gas bombs, and then the next scene jumps to the premiere in New York. The 1976 version did show a scene of Kong on a different ship heading back to New York, but it still didn't show how they got him on there. So before you guys go trashing Jackson and Co., realize that they were just following the source material, which by the way is a classic of American cinema. But based on your comments, I doubt you two would know about such things - you probably haven't even seen the original for that matter. Expand
  56. 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
  57. Byron"Buster"B.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    After my extensive cartography lessons at a prestigious institution of higher learning, the mere idea of an undiscovered island existing--even in the midst of the Great Depression--are slim to none. If you're looking for a plot whole, here's another one: a ten ton gorilla running rampant on an island where all the critters are at a 8/5 scale of what they should be. In After my extensive cartography lessons at a prestigious institution of higher learning, the mere idea of an undiscovered island existing--even in the midst of the Great Depression--are slim to none. If you're looking for a plot whole, here's another one: a ten ton gorilla running rampant on an island where all the critters are at a 8/5 scale of what they should be. In comparison, getting an ape on a boat seems pretty simple! SPOILER: despite what commercials tell you, this is not a documentary. King Kong is a myth! Sorry Matt! Expand
  58. JainL
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    This is a truly amazing and heartfelt movie. The connection between our kingkong and naomi watts is beautiful. Everyone should see this and also realize the animal cruelty still going on in the world by the blinded people.
  59. 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...
  60. SeanD.
    Dec 15, 2005
    8
    So...everyone can plainly see my rating for the film and I will explain that shortly. However, I would like to take this time and refute some of the dismissals people place on the film. First, the so-called "racist" content: this complaint is laughable, because of its PC politics igoring the fact that no one in the film refers to the native peoples as "savage" or even derogatorily So...everyone can plainly see my rating for the film and I will explain that shortly. However, I would like to take this time and refute some of the dismissals people place on the film. First, the so-called "racist" content: this complaint is laughable, because of its PC politics igoring the fact that no one in the film refers to the native peoples as "savage" or even derogatorily comments on the society. These are not cannibals but a race of people forced to live in rocky terrain and survive on fish (Jackson carefully places a shot of dried fish within a montage of the village), so yelling "movie foul" on Jackson's portrayal of primitive peoples holds no water. Secondly, users (and even some critics) decry the length of the film: my focus was on the pacing. Analyzing the film, we see an hour allowed for development of characters. Compare to, say a program people with short attention spans enjoy, Leguna Beach. THOSE 2-D characters have to have some kind of personality to warrant an entire season; however, the characters in "King Kong" need only be focused on for three hours. Who then can say that one hour to personalize and humanize Jack, Carl, Ann, Hays, the Captain, and Carl's crew is too much? It is not a huge demand considering the characters will be placed under extreme stresses for the remaining time. I give credit to Jackson for trying to go beyond introducing "fodder characters" and create personalities which will give some empathetic weight to the proceedings. Complaints then are from people not accustomed to quality characters; I mean, it's not excessive to have an hour if "Hamlet" runs over three hours for the sake of one character. The CGI was crafted with emotion (which I cannot say for Lucas' stark universe), but then Jackson was careful to include something real with the fabricated in each shot. Watts was rarely replaced with an animated standin (compared to Spiderman or Star Wars, both look like action figure battles in parts). My only criticism is that the script seemed to lose strength near the end, and in the jungle. Scenes relied too heavily on "moment" shots. It tells me that the filmmaker doesn't trust the view to "get" the point that fast. Over indulging on moments is what makes this film excessive to some viewers. All in all, the film entertained and carried a subtle theme of displacement and human nature. What I liked especially was the Depression montage of the beginning, the poverty of the people linking to the primitive culture and resulting finally in the synthesis of the two worlds, King Kong, having no other option but to die. That may be a bit much, I know, but I think it's worth noting that interpretations for the mythos range the spectrum, and Jackson is all the more responsible by maintaining the original ambiguity. Expand
  61. JaceB.
    Dec 16, 2005
    9
    King Kong is one of the best films of 2005. After months of lackluster films, Peter Jackson finally released his long-awaited film. This film, to sum it up in one word, is amazing. While others have found it slow, I found it to be one of the most exciting movies I've ever seen. The acting was solid, with an outstanding performance by Watts, the dialogue good, and the overall King Kong is one of the best films of 2005. After months of lackluster films, Peter Jackson finally released his long-awaited film. This film, to sum it up in one word, is amazing. While others have found it slow, I found it to be one of the most exciting movies I've ever seen. The acting was solid, with an outstanding performance by Watts, the dialogue good, and the overall direction of the fim was excellent. Only a few complaints kept this movie from getting a perfect ten. But anyways, this film ends the 2005 movie year on a high note. Expand
  62. KingKongBundy
    Dec 16, 2005
    9
    I know that most of the critics searching for an art elements in movies. They tend to be mean for the blockbuster type of movies. But don't tell me you guys didn't enjoy a bit when you watch the blockbuster movies, especially the good one such as King Kong. I don't mind the low rating but it must based on professionalism, not as a punching bag, you know bashing up all the time.
  63. 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
  64. JeffG.
    Dec 16, 2005
    10
    Brilliant, funny, serious, poignant, action packed, sublte.
  65. JohnB.
    Dec 16, 2005
    9
    Consider the movie first with no knowledge of Kong or what the story is about. Walk into the movie theater without ever hearing about "Kong" and you have one of the most eye popping, mind boggling movies in history. The magic felt during the original film would exist when you walk out of the theater. Peter Jackson proves his abilities to make seamless visuals which in of itself could tell Consider the movie first with no knowledge of Kong or what the story is about. Walk into the movie theater without ever hearing about "Kong" and you have one of the most eye popping, mind boggling movies in history. The magic felt during the original film would exist when you walk out of the theater. Peter Jackson proves his abilities to make seamless visuals which in of itself could tell the whole story. I hadn't even realized that near the end of the film there was nearly an absence of dialog altogether. Jackson so easily sets a certain mood using both the emotions of the actors as well as visuals even if that takes a longer scene here or there. It's true that the movie could have been shaved a good 15 - 30 minutes but once the action begins, the movie equally speeds up and sets a good pace. Though everyone knew what was about to happen next, nothing seemed forced. "King Kong" is a must see and it would only seem better if not genius had the giant ape not been done before and the mysteries and wonders of skull island not been discovered. Expand
  66. Marshall
    Dec 16, 2005
    10
    absolutely amazing! why anyone would want to go thru life NOT seeing this masterpeice of modern cinema is beyond me. one of the years best.
  67. 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
  68. JonathanH.
    Dec 16, 2005
    9
    Anybody who gives this movie a 5 or less is insane. I cannot picture why anyone would give this masterpiece such a low rating. The first hour when they are on the ship was great because of the great acting. So anyone who says the first hour sucks should tell me how the movie would make sense without it.When they get to skull island, you can expect an hour and a half of nonstop brilliant Anybody who gives this movie a 5 or less is insane. I cannot picture why anyone would give this masterpiece such a low rating. The first hour when they are on the ship was great because of the great acting. So anyone who says the first hour sucks should tell me how the movie would make sense without it.When they get to skull island, you can expect an hour and a half of nonstop brilliant acting, action, and much more. Then when king kong gets captured, it gets even better. This whole movie is spectaculr, and the only reason why I did not give it a 10 is because I knew what was coming next. But definetly a must- see for anyone. Expand
  69. FauxPas
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    I was stunned at how bad this movie was, I'm truly mystified at how all these critics gave it positive ratings. It took an hour to get to the stupid island. Then it thought it was Jurassic Park for 30 minutes; then about 30 minutes of Starship Troopers with big bugs. And where did all the natives go the second time our heroes landed on the island? Oh, and did anyone else notice that I was stunned at how bad this movie was, I'm truly mystified at how all these critics gave it positive ratings. It took an hour to get to the stupid island. Then it thought it was Jurassic Park for 30 minutes; then about 30 minutes of Starship Troopers with big bugs. And where did all the natives go the second time our heroes landed on the island? Oh, and did anyone else notice that Ann was outside with Kong overnight in skimpy dress in the middle of winter? Yes, I know this is a fantasy pic, but let's at least get some basic physical realities right! This movie was horrible. Expand
  70. ShoaH.
    Dec 17, 2005
    10
    King Kong- Colossal. Peter Jackson- Triumphant. Jackson takes you on an unimaginable ride that you will never forget. Three hours of my life well spent. Long live Peter Jackson!
  71. RossP.C.
    Dec 17, 2005
    10
    King Kong rocked my socks off. Some of these reviews are too pretentious. If you're looking for realism, go watch something LESS FUN. I never knew how badly I wanted to see a brontosaurus pile-up. I was out of breath at the end of each action sequence and the audience was screaming and cheering throughout the movie. Yeah haw, King Kong is an experience not just a movie. Suspend your King Kong rocked my socks off. Some of these reviews are too pretentious. If you're looking for realism, go watch something LESS FUN. I never knew how badly I wanted to see a brontosaurus pile-up. I was out of breath at the end of each action sequence and the audience was screaming and cheering throughout the movie. Yeah haw, King Kong is an experience not just a movie. Suspend your disbelief and enjoy the spectacle. Expand
  72. babytettobeeme
    Dec 17, 2005
    10
    Actually few people learn how to enjoy fantasy movies done seriously in every way!, in every aspect, this is one of the wonders of the years, not only a blockbuster, tha movies also are made for enjoy not only for critic, but this is excellence!!.
  73. FrankO.
    Dec 17, 2005
    9
    I think there are a few people who might have missed the point of the movie. The movie's logic isn't in 2005, it's in the 1930's. As a movie buff, I really enjoyed that cheekiness. This was realism, but hyper-realism. With a nod to the inaccuracies of the original. I hope everyone knows that this is a remake of the 1930s film and not the 1970s one. "Jurassic Park" I think there are a few people who might have missed the point of the movie. The movie's logic isn't in 2005, it's in the 1930's. As a movie buff, I really enjoyed that cheekiness. This was realism, but hyper-realism. With a nod to the inaccuracies of the original. I hope everyone knows that this is a remake of the 1930s film and not the 1970s one. "Jurassic Park" stole from "King Kong" not the other way around... Peter Jackson's just keeping true to the source material. Yes, the first act is slow, but once the action gets going, it really gets going. Yes, I did wonder how on earth little Naomi Watts stayed warm in the middle of winter in only a slip dress... hmmm... then again, I remember, it's just a silly movie and a pretty darn good one at that. Expand
  74. 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
  75. AlbertSchweitzer
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    Very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad. Laughable, dull, trite. Far less convincing than the original in terms of character emotions and especially the logic of its action scenes. Self-serious in the extreme. Jack Black is terrible. On the upside, three excellent action sequences (amounting to ~20 minutes) and good acting (in thankless roles) from the rest of the cast. Not quite Very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad. Laughable, dull, trite. Far less convincing than the original in terms of character emotions and especially the logic of its action scenes. Self-serious in the extreme. Jack Black is terrible. On the upside, three excellent action sequences (amounting to ~20 minutes) and good acting (in thankless roles) from the rest of the cast. Not quite believable but nice-looking mock-ups of Depression-era New York. Expand
  76. RiazD.
    Dec 17, 2005
    10
    This movie takes every element of a good film and almost perfects it. a month or two ago, when i heard about a king kong remake, i decided i wasn't going to see it. i thought, "a movie about a giant gorilla in 2005?" but then i read and saw the reviews and decided i would give it a try. i'm absolutely blown away by this film! it was intense, engaging, touching, deep, etc. this isThis movie takes every element of a good film and almost perfects it. a month or two ago, when i heard about a king kong remake, i decided i wasn't going to see it. i thought, "a movie about a giant gorilla in 2005?" but then i read and saw the reviews and decided i would give it a try. i'm absolutely blown away by this film! it was intense, engaging, touching, deep, etc. this is an instant classic! Expand
  77. MattT.
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    Peter Jackson's revisit of King Kong was big in imagination and poor in execution. Skull island was a poor mix of Jurassic Park and Lord of the Flies, filled with impossible situations that the main characters kept surviving despite the endless supply of extras that kept appearing to be trampled or eaten. The island scenes dragged on forever. Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts had little Peter Jackson's revisit of King Kong was big in imagination and poor in execution. Skull island was a poor mix of Jurassic Park and Lord of the Flies, filled with impossible situations that the main characters kept surviving despite the endless supply of extras that kept appearing to be trampled or eaten. The island scenes dragged on forever. Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts had little chemistry and poorly written parts. Jack Black was in way over his head. The finale in New York was visually pretty well done although the park scenes were completely out of place and Jack Black's last line was wooden and poorly delivered. This was a total waste of three hours despite the best efforts of the ape. Kong couldn't rescue this turkey Peter Jackson. Expand
  78. MP
    Dec 17, 2005
    8
    A very solid 8. Anyone giving it less then about a 4 is an idiot. This movie is as bad as Gigli? I don't think so. I think the people giving the a 10 are a bit overenthusiastic, but at least they are closer to reality. Yes, some scenes were less then realistic. But the movie is fantasy, so that's fine with me. You have no problem with the 25 foot gorilla or the t. rex, but Naomi A very solid 8. Anyone giving it less then about a 4 is an idiot. This movie is as bad as Gigli? I don't think so. I think the people giving the a 10 are a bit overenthusiastic, but at least they are closer to reality. Yes, some scenes were less then realistic. But the movie is fantasy, so that's fine with me. You have no problem with the 25 foot gorilla or the t. rex, but Naomi Watts underdressed in the winter is completely unbelievable? I agree that the film could have used some editing. A few scenes could have been shortened, and a few left out completely. But those are quibbles. Even with it's problems, it was still a great movie. Maybe not a masterpiece, but certainly better then 95% of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days. Expand
  79. SaulR.
    Dec 18, 2005
    2
    WOW! Peter Jackson's done it again! He's fallen on his hands and knees and worshipped at the altar of empty special effects. Don't any of you people who rate this film so highly EVER wish to see something ORIGINAL at the cinema instead of this endless cycle of xerox remakes, sequels and adaptations? Maybe when you're marvelling at the CGI in McDONALDS: THE MOVIE some WOW! Peter Jackson's done it again! He's fallen on his hands and knees and worshipped at the altar of empty special effects. Don't any of you people who rate this film so highly EVER wish to see something ORIGINAL at the cinema instead of this endless cycle of xerox remakes, sequels and adaptations? Maybe when you're marvelling at the CGI in McDONALDS: THE MOVIE some of you might rub your glazed eyes and think "Is THAt all there is?" The original KING KONG was a perfectly paced rollercoaster ride. This remake is like being stuck on a rapidly spinning Ferris Wheel for three hours. As for the guy who said it "surpasses the original in ever way"...yep-in every way except ORIGINALITY...but who cares about fresh ideas for stores when you 've got al that 'magical' CG eye candy to stare at? Sigh... Expand
  80. J.Sallister
    Dec 18, 2005
    8
    Takes an already great movie and makes it better. Many people fail to see this is a remake of a 1930s film, and is not posed to be realistic. Someone rated this movie poorly because dinosaurs have not existed for over 300 million years and the next person seems to think that this movie is a knockoff of Jurassic Park. People know before they see the film tthat it is a 3 hour movie and it Takes an already great movie and makes it better. Many people fail to see this is a remake of a 1930s film, and is not posed to be realistic. Someone rated this movie poorly because dinosaurs have not existed for over 300 million years and the next person seems to think that this movie is a knockoff of Jurassic Park. People know before they see the film tthat it is a 3 hour movie and it includes a non-existant gorilla. Others like, Daniel T claim that this mega-budget remake of a classic that is (in itself an indication of the banal recycling endemic of current cinema), although Peter Jackson presented countless renditions of the classic to Universal before he was green-lighted, and others may not know that this is an homage and not an original picture, and probably is not meant to be. This movie delivers everything you'd wanna see in a film, some parts may be dragged out, but does not diminish the overall quality of the flick. Too many complain that the movie is unrealistic in every way, everyone knows that before they see the movie, stop crying. The racists (natives) are cannibals (people who eat people), and T-Rex's do not live on the coast, and the wall obviously could not contain Kong. Most people should see the original before they post a review. Expand
  81. MichaelJ.
    Dec 18, 2005
    0
    This is quite possibly the worst time I've had at the theaters all year. I didn't think any movie could drag on for so long and be as pointless as Brothers Grimm, but this one out does it by being longer, dumber, and more pointless than I could have imagined. Is it the fake, laughable "love" story that's causing everyone to freak out about this movie and proclaim it an This is quite possibly the worst time I've had at the theaters all year. I didn't think any movie could drag on for so long and be as pointless as Brothers Grimm, but this one out does it by being longer, dumber, and more pointless than I could have imagined. Is it the fake, laughable "love" story that's causing everyone to freak out about this movie and proclaim it an instant classic? The repetitive, headache inducing "action" scenes? Or the hillarious off target "acting"? Expect this to rack up a lot of Oscars, for it's as bloated and self-serious as Return of the King, and it seems everyone in the movie business has been paid off by Jackson and company. Expand
  82. 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
  83. Walla
    Dec 18, 2005
    10
    Sweet as i said with Harry potter. 81! you critics are retarded.
  84. Tom
    Dec 18, 2005
    7
    In all honesty, this gets a 7.5, rounding down rather than up. It would truely deserve perhaps an 8 or 9 if it weren't for the overdrawn, onanistic action movie this tender tale becomes in the second act. Otherwise, i think it's unfortunate that many are dismissing this film without deeply considering the heartbreaking tale that lies at the core, which I felt held true despite In all honesty, this gets a 7.5, rounding down rather than up. It would truely deserve perhaps an 8 or 9 if it weren't for the overdrawn, onanistic action movie this tender tale becomes in the second act. Otherwise, i think it's unfortunate that many are dismissing this film without deeply considering the heartbreaking tale that lies at the core, which I felt held true despite the dinosaurs, explosions and enormous insects. The first act ignited the passion for adventure, and the final act saw the brutal extinguishing of understanding and non-physical love, but unfortunately the middle part distorted and erased possible interpretation of the subtlties of the original story. Expand
  85. 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
  86. GeorgeJ
    Dec 18, 2005
    2
    OK, several someones are stuffing the ballot box with 10's.; there's no other explanation. In the first 30 minutes I was looking at my watch and debating what to have for dinner. Jackson has taken up the mantle of Lucas and is prepared to offer us high tech movies with little story or dialogue.
  87. KingKong
    Dec 18, 2005
    9
    Come on guys. Be realistic. 0? 1? Give me a break. Why are people reviewing the movie out of context? "Its unrealistic" Since when is a 25 foot ape and a T-Rex fighting supposed to be realistic? If you want realism.... Go see murderball. "Its racist". You almost need to BE racist to consider this racist. Is it racist when actual filmographers encounter undiscovered tribes and film them, Come on guys. Be realistic. 0? 1? Give me a break. Why are people reviewing the movie out of context? "Its unrealistic" Since when is a 25 foot ape and a T-Rex fighting supposed to be realistic? If you want realism.... Go see murderball. "Its racist". You almost need to BE racist to consider this racist. Is it racist when actual filmographers encounter undiscovered tribes and film them, because they're different from us? "Too long" This one i will give. Although it's not as TERRIBLY DRAWN OUT as all the 0 ratings say, there were scenes that were stretched. Which is why I give this film a 9. If it had the flow all the way through, a definite 10. The film had raw emotion. I could feel Watts and Kong's connection. Her torment over his capture and his rage, his panicked search through the streets to find his love. I can safely say it is one of my top three movies of the year. I highly recommend you disregard all scores, and make your own decision on the movie. Going into it with a "This movies gonna be overrated" point of view left me with a "Wow" at the end of it. Expand
  88. 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
  89. LordLuscious
    Dec 19, 2005
    0
    Well, money doesn't buy everything. Jackson's "labor of love" cost about the amount of money that could feed every starving person in the world several times over. All this money is spent on cheap looking, stupid special effects. It's fun to try and point out all the scenes where the actors are obviously looking at a green screen. "So you mean when this is done it'll Well, money doesn't buy everything. Jackson's "labor of love" cost about the amount of money that could feed every starving person in the world several times over. All this money is spent on cheap looking, stupid special effects. It's fun to try and point out all the scenes where the actors are obviously looking at a green screen. "So you mean when this is done it'll look like I'm pointing at a Brontosaurus!?". The critics are absolutely crazy on this one, as if they've ony been allowed to watch big, stupid summer blockbusters their whole life and because this one shows a glimmer (a faint, faint, fake, cheap glimmer) of emotion behind all the lifeless CGI it must be one of the greatest movies ever. At least Catwoman and Herbie: Fully Loaded didn't take themselves so seriously and take an entire weekend to watch. Expand
  90. 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
  91. Leo
    Dec 19, 2005
    10
    This is one of the best films I've ever seen, a classic.
  92. JonB.
    Dec 19, 2005
    10
    Rarely has a movie impressed me as much as Kong has. I expected very little from the trailers. But what about good initial reviews? I was conflicted. Cynical. Three hours later, I felt like a fool for ever doubting Peter Jackson. True, some people might not care much for special effects, or a fantastic story that teems with incredible, unbelievable parts. If Kong's not your cup of Rarely has a movie impressed me as much as Kong has. I expected very little from the trailers. But what about good initial reviews? I was conflicted. Cynical. Three hours later, I felt like a fool for ever doubting Peter Jackson. True, some people might not care much for special effects, or a fantastic story that teems with incredible, unbelievable parts. If Kong's not your cup of tea, then grade it lower. But, even those for whose fancies are left untickled by this movie have to settle at an 8, 7 on a bad day, for the craft and work as a whole. 95% solid dialogue (Star Wars shoots under 30%), phenomenal acting, wonderful shots, great character development, and a love story that doesn't seem forced. Hate if you want, but you're fooling yourself. Kong's great. Expand
  93. JemT.
    Dec 19, 2005
    4
    This is a Peter Jackson wet dream, and an extremely disappointing film. I would recommend NOT seeing it.
  94. 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
  95. ShariN.
    Dec 19, 2005
    9
    This was a great film!
  96. InsanelySane
    Dec 19, 2005
    3
    This film.... ...deserves some credit for the sheer amount of work put into the mostly pointless CGI... I cannot think of an appropriate metaphor to describe the torture I had gone through sitting in the cinema - with insulting action sequences and hollow, shallow attempts at immersing a sense of wonder which made me, I swear on this, feel ill and depressed when the nightmare finally This film.... ...deserves some credit for the sheer amount of work put into the mostly pointless CGI... I cannot think of an appropriate metaphor to describe the torture I had gone through sitting in the cinema - with insulting action sequences and hollow, shallow attempts at immersing a sense of wonder which made me, I swear on this, feel ill and depressed when the nightmare finally ended.. I find it ridiculous how technology excuses much of what should not be allowed to be excused!! - Some vague attempt at emotion used in CGI DOES NOT WARRANT comments that say that this is an emotional film or that it has depth and character. For those who dont pick up on shallowness and allow TOTALLY ILLOGICAL scenarios to unfold without wanting to shriek out in disgust that any sense of reality has been utterly suspended, I challenge you all to give reasons for your satisfaction with this drawn out and melodramatic film. The pain of sitting through a transparent, cliched and sour script where every potential for emotion had to be spelt out and every action explained, killed any sense of mystery or identification with the characters, the time period or the anticipation for adventure.. argh yet again I cant stand writing my own review it gets me so angry!! why do these films have to be so safe and so freakin dumbed down?!?! its sad and perhaps its my fault and I should retreat back to my fantasy world where risk is a necessary means to allowing the imagination to evolve.. Expand
  97. Mick
    Dec 19, 2005
    7
    Visually Stunning, but too long and drawn out in places.
  98. TheProfitcy
    Dec 21, 2005
    0
    If you like your action dumb, with all the chest banging, tribal stereotyping and logic destroying fun of the "old time" classics, you'll still find this movie, dumb, ignorant and pukifying. So excuse me, I must go puke just thinking about this piece of trash.
  99. Josh
    Dec 21, 2005
    7
    This was far from a classic movie, but in terms of sheer energy and adventure it is quite successful. The haters seem to take it waaaaay too seriously. It's a blockheaded popcorn flick and if you put it up against others of the same ilk, it comes out way ahead. I am not a Peter Jackson lover and was never particularly blown away by any of the LOTR movies. His special effects ranged This was far from a classic movie, but in terms of sheer energy and adventure it is quite successful. The haters seem to take it waaaaay too seriously. It's a blockheaded popcorn flick and if you put it up against others of the same ilk, it comes out way ahead. I am not a Peter Jackson lover and was never particularly blown away by any of the LOTR movies. His special effects ranged from bad to brilliant and the characters were never really that compelling, and all of this is no different in King Kong. It was long and, at times, relentless in terms of bombastic action, but it 's an epic 30's movie (narrative and morals) filmed with modern technology and it all fits. Don't take it so seriously. Watch it for what it is. Try not to think about it too much and save all that effort for a movie that actually needs it. King Kong is pure escapist entertainment with plenty of flaws, but so what? Couldn't you spend your time better ripping Aeon Flux or any number of truly bad Hollywood "Blockbuster" material? Expand
  100. WAKOJAKO
    Dec 21, 2005
    10
    Holy sh.t! The new master of cinema has done it again. And how!!! I have not been as scared, awed, moved to tears and so thoroughly entertained since...well, the Lord of the Rings movies. If this film is not nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award, I may just stop watching that damned show. Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis also deserve acting nominations.
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.