Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 14, 2005
7.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1399 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,000
Mixed:
155
Negative:
244
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
8
EpicLadySpongeJan 20, 2016
A good remake of the original. What's so bad about it? Jack Black's in it. Other than that, it's a gorilla taking down a plane holding a woman reminding you how 1933 went by so fast.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
SpangleApr 12, 2016
Both incredibly racist and sexist, King Kong is a classic tale that so overlong it truly hurts. While entertaining and well acted, the film could have stood to be far shorter. Fortunately, it packs its overstuffed runtime with entertainingBoth incredibly racist and sexist, King Kong is a classic tale that so overlong it truly hurts. While entertaining and well acted, the film could have stood to be far shorter. Fortunately, it packs its overstuffed runtime with entertaining sequences and spectacular special effects. Naomi Watts is fantastic here and brings raw emotion to the role as the white woman whose beauty and whiteness tames the savage black man. While the overt racism inherent in the story suffocates it pretty good, racist films can still be quite good and King Kong is a perfect example of this. There is a seriously epic feel to the film and it is well handled by Jackson who knows his way around an epic. If the film was shorter, then the overall film would be far more enjoyable because the extravagant set pieces and scenes pack the right amount of power, but the filler winds up stunting that excitement. Heck, the film could keep all the scenes, but they could be just a touch shorter. Yet, the pay off was quite solid admittedly. Appropriately emotional and stirring, the ending really rips your heart out and makes you hate the people who did this to Kong. Overall, an appropriately epic blockbuster that entertains and thrills, but packed too much into just one film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Compi24Nov 28, 2012
It may have dragged a bit in some parts but Peter Jackson's visually resplendent remake of "King Kong" still resonated well with me in the end.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MovieGuysJan 17, 2014
King Kong is petty good in terms of story and acting, but its 187 minute runtime makes it feel like you're watching it for a month. While movies like Lawrence of Arabia and Gone With The Wind may be justifiably long, King Kong isn't.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
beingryanjudeSep 3, 2014
Peter Jackson's re-imagination of King Kong is a swell time to spend three hours. The new vision is stunning and heartfelt--he is influenced by the original work, but brings a new focus to the story.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
csw12Feb 14, 2013
Peter Jackson has done it again. King Kong is majestic, beautifully executed and a stunning love story. The movie is simple, but so effective, just a tragic story that holds you emotionally and visually from beginning to end. King KongPeter Jackson has done it again. King Kong is majestic, beautifully executed and a stunning love story. The movie is simple, but so effective, just a tragic story that holds you emotionally and visually from beginning to end. King Kong proves that Jackson is one hell of a director. Expand
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
7
grandpajoe6191Sep 27, 2011
"King Kong" is a great summer blockbuster movie that will throw you out of your mind. However, that's as far as the movie can get to you.
3 of 7 users found this helpful34
All this user's reviews
10
Meth-dudeApr 26, 2014
Great cast,amazing acting and absolutely wonderful graphics.The movie is long but we don't see the time pass because the movie is so awesome.There is so many action scenes and the dinosaurs were realistic.I didn't like the original but this one wow!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
lukechristianscJul 31, 2014
there are so many king Kong movies like example the one that started from 1933 But this one is so much better then the 1933 version. King Kong is stunning it has creativity, imagination and talent.When you see this for the 100th or athere are so many king Kong movies like example the one that started from 1933 But this one is so much better then the 1933 version. King Kong is stunning it has creativity, imagination and talent.When you see this for the 100th or a million times you can understand that there's so much love that a beast and a woman and thats the love that the story on itself. you cant just watch this movie and skip the drama parts that watts love for the ape thats part of the passion and the story. You can understand that the love that a human and a animal thats part of kong's battle in the world. this movie would not be a huge hit if it wasn't for Peter Jackson even if he did not write the script it automatically it tells us he used his imagination in the screenplay or way it tells it adventure. Jackson its the new Steilberg he has a film makers eye with adventure, horror and its beautiful. Jackson has some movies that have a world of good imagination like the adventures of Titin. but there are some things wrong with his performance of directing like lord of the rings. Whats wrong with lord of the rings is its like a rush to the finish line. and we need to see it improve from Jackson thats the bad part of jackson that i dont like. kong is amazing movie. i hope theres king kong 2 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
cameronmorewoodNov 8, 2012
King Kong opens up quietly asking questions and provoking thoughts. It then entrances us by plucking us from our chairs and throwing us into a dazzling and breath-taking fantasy world created with some incredible special effects. To seal theKing Kong opens up quietly asking questions and provoking thoughts. It then entrances us by plucking us from our chairs and throwing us into a dazzling and breath-taking fantasy world created with some incredible special effects. To seal the deal, in its last hour, it grows close to our hearts and then floors us. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Trev29Mar 30, 2013
A lavish long-winded beautiful bore. Compacted with unnecessarily elongated scenes that take away from the central theme. A movie at first you enjoy but are then forced to endure.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
CineAutoctonoJul 21, 2015
Very good movie . a remake is not as famous as the 33 ' but even if errors scene brontosaurus stampede and participation of Jack Black in this action adventure movie and drama. This project has taken its format very well.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
ZilcellMay 25, 2012
King Kong has very jaw dropping brawls with Kong. The story is everything that King Kong is and should be. Its a great remake and a very memorable story.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FranzHcriticJan 26, 2014
Peter Jackson displays his talents with visuals, and a coherent storyline. While I still dislike and fail to respect remakes, 'King Kong' is one of those out a million that work, thanks to Jack Black and Adrien Brody. And Serkis is the onlyPeter Jackson displays his talents with visuals, and a coherent storyline. While I still dislike and fail to respect remakes, 'King Kong' is one of those out a million that work, thanks to Jack Black and Adrien Brody. And Serkis is the only person who can make motion capture work well. While the film still has his corny moments, especially at the ends, you can slowly forget the running time and be somewhat enthralled in the icon of King Kong Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MovieLonely94Oct 30, 2010
the minute length was way too longer when its resonant, but that didn't stop Peter Jackson for making this perfect hit.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
homer4presidentMar 11, 2015
King Kong is Peter Jackon's big, bold remake of the revered 1933 original. Getting off to a slow - though not uninteresting start, this movie really begins to shine once the Venture arrives at Skull Island, where Jackson and his team onceKing Kong is Peter Jackon's big, bold remake of the revered 1933 original. Getting off to a slow - though not uninteresting start, this movie really begins to shine once the Venture arrives at Skull Island, where Jackson and his team once again prove their spectacular prowess in the world of visual effects. The choreography and execution of the action scenes are nothing short of stunning (particularly in the one involving Kong and 3 T-Rex, as well as another that can only be described as a bug-phobic's worst nightmare.) Kong succeeds on the emotional level as well, playing out the platonic love-story with surprising poignancy and depth. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
diogomendesJul 30, 2015
While some special effects (excluding King Kong himself) are lazily unfinished and its pace can sometimes be problematic, "King Kong" is a solid update of the 1933's picture thanks to talented performances and enthralling direction.

6.5/10
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
axelkochDec 10, 2012
It's an awesome adventure speaking of special effects. The team around this movie created such a great world, all props go to the CGI team. But in other aspects, this movie is too long, the cast is only mediocre (Jack Black is bad) and it'sIt's an awesome adventure speaking of special effects. The team around this movie created such a great world, all props go to the CGI team. But in other aspects, this movie is too long, the cast is only mediocre (Jack Black is bad) and it's got a ragged editing. The succeeding of scenes is often poor and so is the whole script. Nonetheless those things, I enjoyed the fantasy world really much and it's an entertaining and cool picture. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
OfficialDec 29, 2013
Yes, "King Kong" is slightly overlong (theatrical: 187 minutes, extended: 201 minutes), but you cannot deny that it is an emotional and powerful epic. Director Peter Jackson, who also helmed the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, once again bringsYes, "King Kong" is slightly overlong (theatrical: 187 minutes, extended: 201 minutes), but you cannot deny that it is an emotional and powerful epic. Director Peter Jackson, who also helmed the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, once again brings us a memorable, visually stunning adventure. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
BradySmithAug 26, 2013
A superb remake, and a thrilling adventure on its own terms, King Kong was one of 2005's most entertaining movies. It starts out slow, with a very 1930's vibe. I wouldn't consider the sections before the crew gets close to Skull IslandA superb remake, and a thrilling adventure on its own terms, King Kong was one of 2005's most entertaining movies. It starts out slow, with a very 1930's vibe. I wouldn't consider the sections before the crew gets close to Skull Island great filmmaking exactly, but Jackson has made good choice not to rush the story. Once they get to the island it proves that it was well worth the half hour wait. Believable performances, for the most part incredible special effects, Jackson's expert direction, and real emotion make this a must own. Granted, when I first saw the previews years ago I was hoping for a more surreal and out there vision of the story, but what we got was more than good enough. Almost forgot to mention how great the movie's score was. (That means the background music.) Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
MovieMasterEddyApr 6, 2016
Among the reasons "King Kong" - the old 100-minute black-and-white version, that is - has retained its appeal over the years is that it reminds audiences of the do-it-yourself, seat-of-the-pants ethic of early motion pictures. In 1933, whenAmong the reasons "King Kong" - the old 100-minute black-and-white version, that is - has retained its appeal over the years is that it reminds audiences of the do-it-yourself, seat-of-the-pants ethic of early motion pictures. In 1933, when RKO released it, sound film was in its infancy, and film itself was in the midst of a coltish, irrepressible adolescence. Merian C. Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack, who directed the first "Kong," understood the alchemical convergence of gimmickry and sublimity that lay at the heart of the medium's unrivaled potential to generate spectacle and sensation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The climax of "King Kong" - one of the most familiar sequences in movies, and one that never grows old - exemplifies both tendencies. It is shameless and exalted, absurd and sublime, vulgar and grand. It's what movies were made for.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MovieManiac83Apr 23, 2015
By choosing to re-make King Kong, an American iconic masterpiece, Peter Jackson set a task for himself higher than the Empire State Building. Making this movie wasn't just following up The Lord of the Rings, it was the fulfillment of aBy choosing to re-make King Kong, an American iconic masterpiece, Peter Jackson set a task for himself higher than the Empire State Building. Making this movie wasn't just following up The Lord of the Rings, it was the fulfillment of a lifelong dream. And, as with all such personal projects, this one ran the danger of not working because the director was too close to the material. (Steven Spielberg's Hook and Atom Egoyan's Ararat fall into that category.) Fortunately, Jackson's passion for the material did not dim his creative senses. By combining the best elements of the 1933 and 1976 versions of the film with his own contributions, Jackson has made what many will consider to be the definitive King Kong. There's no need to try this story again; it's doubtful it can be improved upon.

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

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

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

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

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

Would of been a lot better if it had been 40 minutes shorter.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
gm101Feb 15, 2011
While the ending wasn't really satisfying, overall, it was a fun ride. And I actually didn't mind the length of the movie, something I criticised Peter Kackson's LOTR trilogy for.
5 of 5 users found this helpful50
All this user's reviews
10
mds03Mar 3, 2013
This is probably the most anticipated movie of 2005. It was very entertaining and very unpredictable. Naomi Watts and Jack Black were fantastic for their roles. It's so entertaining that the 3 hours of it feels like 1 hour.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
sil3nt_nickMar 24, 2013
Very good special effects although the plot line could have used a bit more.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
juliankennedy23Sep 5, 2014
King Kong 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keepKing Kong 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.

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

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

Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong isn't perfect. The special effects are overall top notch but when people run with dinosaurs the limit of the blue screen show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone). The other problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
Potter17Oct 9, 2011
It doesn't disappoint as a remake. Actually, Peter Jackson's vision of King Kong is more epic, passionate and unforgettable than the original.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
Jollyjoe1000Nov 27, 2015
Most of the movie is enjoyable.But the ending completely ruins the movie.I want a good ending.King Kong should not be killed.Thanks a lot universal you made the most overrated movie ever.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
ZerpnosMar 5, 2017
Sıkıcıydı, gerçekten sıkıcıydı. 3 saatlik bir film yapıp her saniye ne olduğunu göstereceklerine, 2 saatlik bir film yapıp saçma kısımları geçerek izleyiciyi sıkmadan, seyir zevki yüksek bir goril aşkı izletebilirlerdi. Maalesef bunun yerineSıkıcıydı, gerçekten sıkıcıydı. 3 saatlik bir film yapıp her saniye ne olduğunu göstereceklerine, 2 saatlik bir film yapıp saçma kısımları geçerek izleyiciyi sıkmadan, seyir zevki yüksek bir goril aşkı izletebilirlerdi. Maalesef bunun yerine 3 saatlik bir film yapmayı ve sadece 1 saatini New York'un eski zamanlarında ve gemide harcamışlar, izleyiciyi aşırı derece de sıkmışlardır. Ormanda ki yerlilerin saldırısı ve ayin kısımları sonrasında Kong'un kızı bulması ve 2-3 aksiyon sahnesinin ardından uzatmadan Kong'u yakalayıp, New Yorka götürüp ardından orada olanları izleyebilirdik. Hatta öyle olsaydı bu film 9 puanı bile alabilirdi fakat onun yerine dediğim gibi sıkıcı bir şekilde konuyu işlemişler ve izlerken insanın sıkılmasına sebep olmuşlar. Şu an 3 saatimin boşa gidişine üzülüyorum. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
devo-ncJan 22, 2014
Kong resonates almost every genre in a turbulent movie ride of a lifetime. There is so much cinematic elements of range happening in every scene that can be occasionally an unusual mixture, but to embrace film and it's artistry all jammedKong resonates almost every genre in a turbulent movie ride of a lifetime. There is so much cinematic elements of range happening in every scene that can be occasionally an unusual mixture, but to embrace film and it's artistry all jammed into a 3 hour epic of our time is before you in another one of Peter Jackson's excellent work. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews