Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 14, 2005
7.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1392 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
995
Mixed:
153
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)
6
AlanD.Dec 15, 2005
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 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... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SeanD.Dec 15, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JaceB.Dec 16, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
KingKongBundyDec 16, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JeffD.Dec 16, 2005
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, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JeffG.Dec 16, 2005
Brilliant, funny, serious, poignant, action packed, sublte.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JohnB.Dec 16, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MarshallDec 16, 2005
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
WillisW.Dec 16, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JonathanH.Dec 16, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
FauxPasDec 17, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ShoaH.Dec 17, 2005
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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RossP.C.Dec 17, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
babytettobeemeDec 17, 2005
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!!.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
FrankO.Dec 17, 2005
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BrianO.W.Dec 17, 2005
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
1
AlbertSchweitzerDec 17, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RiazD.Dec 17, 2005
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 andThis 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MattT.Dec 17, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MPDec 17, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
SaulR.Dec 18, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
J.SallisterDec 18, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MichaelJ.Dec 18, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChrisP.Dec 18, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WallaDec 18, 2005
Sweet as i said with Harry potter. 81! you critics are retarded.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
TomDec 18, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JasonADec 18, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
GeorgeJDec 18, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
KingKongDec 18, 2005
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JohntheCriticDec 18, 2005
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LordLusciousDec 19, 2005
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ToddG.Dec 19, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LeoDec 19, 2005
This is one of the best films I've ever seen, a classic.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JonB.Dec 19, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JemT.Dec 19, 2005
This is a Peter Jackson wet dream, and an extremely disappointing film. I would recommend NOT seeing it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
RandyP.Dec 19, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ShariN.Dec 19, 2005
This was a great film!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
InsanelySaneDec 19, 2005
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
MickDec 19, 2005
Visually Stunning, but too long and drawn out in places.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TheProfitcyDec 21, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JoshDec 21, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WAKOJAKODec 21, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DaveF.Dec 21, 2005
Nothing short of spectacular! Though not normally prone to online ratings, I thought I would step in on Kong's behalf to try and dispel some of the lesser than worthy user ratings. Yes, the acting is over-the-top and the story Nothing short of spectacular! Though not normally prone to online ratings, I thought I would step in on Kong's behalf to try and dispel some of the lesser than worthy user ratings. Yes, the acting is over-the-top and the story implausible - just like the original. Jackson has reinvented a long lost genre of film-making that also includes a blend of modern greats such as Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, and of-course Lord of the Rings. The action causes you to jump from your and the story makes sure you stay in it. Finally, yes, the movie is 3 hours long. So were all three Lord of the Rings. If you have a difficult time sitting in a theater for such a length, wait for it on DVD and enjoy it then...when you can pause it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
CameronS.Dec 22, 2005
It's not often that I vote something this highly, but King Kong is EASILY the film of the year. Fantastic effects, gripping screenplay, beatutifully directed, phenomenal cast (give Andy Serkis an Oscar now) and gripping for every one of It's not often that I vote something this highly, but King Kong is EASILY the film of the year. Fantastic effects, gripping screenplay, beatutifully directed, phenomenal cast (give Andy Serkis an Oscar now) and gripping for every one of its 187 minutes. I quote from Empire here, but the statement "what could have been Jackson Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
HolidayDocDec 22, 2005
Nothing can save this movie. It is so campy and bad that it is truly awful. All you people giving this movie high marks report to the hospital to schedule your lobotomy as you have lost your minds. If this movie is nominated for anything Nothing can save this movie. It is so campy and bad that it is truly awful. All you people giving this movie high marks report to the hospital to schedule your lobotomy as you have lost your minds. If this movie is nominated for anything other than special effects it would be a disgrace to the Academy. This is as bad as it gets and three excruciating hours long to boot. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
EvanS.Dec 22, 2005
What this movie needs is a fewer bugs, less budget and more focus on the engaging story about beauty and the beast. This egofest could have easily been drawn to two hours, but we're forced to wade through the silly and weary build-up What this movie needs is a fewer bugs, less budget and more focus on the engaging story about beauty and the beast. This egofest could have easily been drawn to two hours, but we're forced to wade through the silly and weary build-up aboard the Venture and a trip through Jurassic Park (Hey Jackson, Spielberg took us here already). This movie is designed beautifully and it's almost worth it to see the monkey rip up New York City, but I couldn't help see Jackson as the 800-pound gorilla who tosses his weight around and spending a grotesque sum to make a so-so movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BillyS.Dec 22, 2005
Take a classic 1933 film, add a 200 million dollar f/x budget to the same story and characters and what do you get? Jurrasic Park with a monkey. A big, bombastic bore of blockbuster proportions!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
RVVenDec 22, 2005
Worst of the 3 Kong films. Useless reimagning, endless sweeping shots, heavy handed acting, horrible editing, etc...
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
SeanS.Dec 22, 2005
This movie is the worst movie I have seen since The Titanic was released.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
LynnW.Dec 22, 2005
I'm a huge Peter Jackson fan, but this movie was exhausting. You just couldn't wait for it to be over. I found myself muttering "Die, already!" for the last half hour.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
IvanS.Dec 23, 2005
Brilliant! Kong totally stole the show...
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
FernandoK.Dec 23, 2005
Peter Jackson tried to play with our feelings about Kong¡¡ That scene "Kong Bambi in the ice" is ridiculous¡ He put that scene just a few seconds before the tragedy just to make the tears come out¡ In many cases it Peter Jackson tried to play with our feelings about Kong¡¡ That scene "Kong Bambi in the ice" is ridiculous¡ He put that scene just a few seconds before the tragedy just to make the tears come out¡ In many cases it worked, but it notices the intention¡ But its a great movie with amazing effects¡¡ after all Peter Jackson dissapoint me¡ He is only that.. effects¡¡ Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
CwellDec 23, 2005
Awesome. With a short attention span, you're never bored. Hold your attention and it captivates you. Best remake of all time!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ChadS.Dec 23, 2005
When we get to Skull Island, it's "Spot the DVD Bonus Footage"-time. The dinosaur stampede can stay, but all those cave creatures was too much of a good thing; that is, if you consider CGI a good thing. It throws the whole film out of When we get to Skull Island, it's "Spot the DVD Bonus Footage"-time. The dinosaur stampede can stay, but all those cave creatures was too much of a good thing; that is, if you consider CGI a good thing. It throws the whole film out of whack, and even the most ardent action junkie will be able to feel the excess. The big gorilla is upstaged by a "Jurassic Park" hijack. In the human division, Naomi Watts is typically Watts-like, but Adrien Brody looks bored, and Jack Black, in trying to distance himself from his comic persona, seems a little too muted. "King Kong" is mildly disappointing, saved only by art design and a brilliant way of showing how Hollywood depicts indigenous cultures. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
BillyD.Dec 25, 2005
I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. The beginning was drawn out but okay. The middle might has well have been cutscenes from a videogame. And the ending was very welcome. Shame on all involved for making me hate a fight between dinosaurs and a gargatuan ape. I should have been the easiest sell in the world, but instead I watched my shoes for the last hour of the movie. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
9
DuaneH.Dec 26, 2005
A beautiful movie, if a bit self-indulgent. Its three hours are far too long to keep the story intact. Should not be seen by young children. The PG-13 rating is too generous.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
StormIestDec 26, 2005
Don't be fooled. This movie is terribly written, and when the visuals seem plastic and fake, and they often do, there is absolutely nothing to keep your attention on screen. Peter Jackson has never made a good film. He just doesn't get it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ArmstrongR.Dec 26, 2005
Mick LaSalle's review of the movie for the San Francisco Chronicle is dead on. Peter Jackson's "Kong" is full of clever ideas, exciting action and touching moments, most of which should have been left on the cutting room floor.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
FreaksterDec 27, 2005
Peter Jackson is kidding if he thinks this is quality entertainment. People were laughing out loud and walking out in the middle. The casting was awful and the acting even worse. As for the dialogue I only wish I could criticize it but there Peter Jackson is kidding if he thinks this is quality entertainment. People were laughing out loud and walking out in the middle. The casting was awful and the acting even worse. As for the dialogue I only wish I could criticize it but there wasn't any except for some imbosylic yaking by the horrendous Jack Black. This movie is a total disgrace. If you want to watch stupid moronic nonsense watch the video game. This movie is terrible. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
BoskoDec 27, 2005
I don't see why any critic would praise this film but pan (as they all did) Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" or the "Godzilla" remake. Those movies were more believeable than this one. This is the dumbest film of all time. I don't see why any critic would praise this film but pan (as they all did) Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" or the "Godzilla" remake. Those movies were more believeable than this one. This is the dumbest film of all time. There's not one character that didn't belong in a Hanna Babera cartoon. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KashiK.Dec 27, 2005
This is a great movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DennisL.Dec 27, 2005
Great movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
OrenK.Dec 27, 2005
Incredible CGI, and amazing attention to detail (as in LOTR). However, it was very very long. Overall, worth seeing and fairly enjoyable.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
KeithL.Dec 27, 2005
I waited over 4years for this when I heard Peter jackson was going to make this movie and...wow. I can't put into words how over the top and bad King Kong was. 3 hrs of my life wasted. I'll never get it back. Don't believe the I waited over 4years for this when I heard Peter jackson was going to make this movie and...wow. I can't put into words how over the top and bad King Kong was. 3 hrs of my life wasted. I'll never get it back. Don't believe the hype or the critics, the studio paid handsomely for those write ups no doubt because this a brainless farce that drags and lopes with no sense of grounding whatsoever. To make matters worse, it looks hastily prepared. The special effects aren't very special in many spots and, hey now, the story lags too. Bad, bad, bad, and it sucks too. Did I mention that we all hated it? This is as bad as the following: The Mummy, The Hulk, Batman & Robin, Godzilla 1998, and ANY of the Star Wars prequels (admittedly I have not seen Episode III--and don't need or want to). It actually makes Dino DeLaurentis' 1976 version look like pure genius. Peter Jackson, what have you done? Thank god it was $5 night. BTW: Funny story. I left to pee during the excruciating bug attack sequence and there were people in the hallway harassing theatre emplyees for their money back over this. One guy said, "you mean to tell me I have to sit in there for another hour and not get some kind of compensation?" I busted out laughing and expressed my sentiments. If I had to sit through it, WE ALL had to sit through it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AlistairD.Dec 28, 2005
Brillant. It is great too see long films being made and great to see a big budget film that's actually good. Some ridiculous bits here and there but for the most part a fantastic film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RhettW.Dec 28, 2005
Technically and emotionally on a level making it one of the best "popcorn" movies of all time. Naomi Watts gives a landmark "blue-screen" peformance.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ErikN.Dec 29, 2005
Spectacular and one of the best monster movies ever made. Tons of fun, brilliant effects and emotionally very moving. Another terrific job by Peter Jackson.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
BenH.Dec 29, 2005
I had very high expectations for this movie before I saw it. After it was over, I was very convinced that this is one of the best movies ever made. Even though it wasn't as amazing as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I thought it followed I had very high expectations for this movie before I saw it. After it was over, I was very convinced that this is one of the best movies ever made. Even though it wasn't as amazing as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I thought it followed by very closely. Overall, I think everyone should see this film because it appeals to many types of audiences. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KingkongtetoDec 29, 2005
La mejor en produccion, foto, actriz, director, sonido y efectos especiales, una de las 3 mejores del año, le doy 10, pues solo Peter Jackson ha demostrado que el cine fantastico y de acción se puede hacer con mucha seriedad La mejor en produccion, foto, actriz, director, sonido y efectos especiales, una de las 3 mejores del año, le doy 10, pues solo Peter Jackson ha demostrado que el cine fantastico y de acción se puede hacer con mucha seriedad amando verdaderamente el cine y las historias... mas satisfactoria que la original del 33, no es solo un remake sino uno de los mejores remakes de la historia del cine. 2005's Best pircture. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
RobertR.Dec 29, 2005
This is a movie that definately deserved a remake, as the special effects that are now possible provide spellbinding entertainment for this story. Jackson should be proud, as he has putt together a movie that is both true to it's This is a movie that definately deserved a remake, as the special effects that are now possible provide spellbinding entertainment for this story. Jackson should be proud, as he has putt together a movie that is both true to it's original origins, whilst remaining relevant and exciting in the current time. Naomi Watts is cast perfectly as the love interest of tragically-fated Kong, and provides ear-piercing screams in this performance, as well as accurately portraying the complexity of her character. Overall, an action-packed and supreb remake of a classic movie, that will become a classic in it's own right. Best special effects leap since "Jurassic Park". Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MichaelW.Dec 31, 2005
An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. Get my drift?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LeslieL.Dec 31, 2005
Its so ridiculous it is frightening. Obviously the critics are bought and paid for. The acting was attrocious, the directing even worse and the plot a total joke. If there was dialogue I must have missed it because I did start to nod off Its so ridiculous it is frightening. Obviously the critics are bought and paid for. The acting was attrocious, the directing even worse and the plot a total joke. If there was dialogue I must have missed it because I did start to nod off during the excruciating long first hour. By the time we get to Skull Island the movie turns into a comedy. Peter Jackson is a joke. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
StephanC.Dec 31, 2005
The movie was very good, and quite moving. It was a tad long, though.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
FrancisDec 31, 2005
Great movie, what a follow-up to Lord of the Rings!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
HarbingerAug 14, 2010
King Kong is one of the most memorable and celebrated stories of all-time. This remake or "re-envisioned" version of the original King Kongs is stunning, heartful, and simply unforgettable. Peter Jackson creates a remarkable and hauntingKing Kong is one of the most memorable and celebrated stories of all-time. This remake or "re-envisioned" version of the original King Kongs is stunning, heartful, and simply unforgettable. Peter Jackson creates a remarkable and haunting Skull Island. King Kong is arguably the greatest CGI character of all-time. Forget 'Avatar', this is CGI at its best. Kong has emotion, cuts, etc. You can practically believe he or any other creature of Skull Island are real, thanks to the superb visuals. Despite the huge runtime, Kong never falters and does justice to its source material-and then some. I truly believe that this version of Kong is the best ever released. Everything is damn-right perfect, and you can't help but cry at the end, even though you already know what is going to happen to Kong. This movie transcends all of its hype and truly engages us on all levels: visual, intellectual and emotional. A true masterpiece. Go see it-now. Expand
13 of 14 users found this helpful131
All this user's reviews
6
sreekiranDec 15, 2010
king kong is the remake of the original movie. there is no novelity in the script. the movie is just a remake.
execution is nice. enthralling and captivating. direction screenplay and technical values are the upper hand to the movie. casting
king kong is the remake of the original movie. there is no novelity in the script. the movie is just a remake.
execution is nice. enthralling and captivating. direction screenplay and technical values are the upper hand to the movie. casting is nice and production values are worthy. the final grade of the movie is B+
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
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
7
VaiKellyMar 24, 2011
First of all, a three-hour marathon is precisely what I expect from Peter Jackson. I really do! He makes movies like very few in the world - he's precise, thorough, immaculate, and needs a canvass that he can expand as much as he needs. KingFirst of all, a three-hour marathon is precisely what I expect from Peter Jackson. I really do! He makes movies like very few in the world - he's precise, thorough, immaculate, and needs a canvass that he can expand as much as he needs. King Kong is not at all boring or lengthy, it is just right for the way Jackson builds his characters up, lets the audience into Kong, into the overall evolution of the movie's plot. It is obvious that Jackson's major emphasis is on Kong and Ann (Naomi Watts), and he takes his time with them. Andy Serkis, who also played Gollum in the Lord of the Ring trilogy, is a chameleon and master of the fantasy-creatures theme. Serkis has given Kong a life of its own, and his interplay with Watts' character is the highlight of the movie. Now, what were Jack Black and Adrien Brody doing is a question that really got to me. I seriously wonder if Carl Denham had been played by, say, Tom Wilkinson, Denham might have been 'logical' for me. Black's too young to play Denham's treacherous, unethical, and callous personality, Wilkinson might have been a logical fit with his age and acting credentials, along with some serious bodyweight loss and a younger-looking make-up! But I'm running into Skull Island fantasy here! I enjoyed the action sequences, Kong's physical specimen is a sight to behold, though that ultimate fight between Kong and the before-mutation dinosaurs, when Kong rescues Ann, was probably too long and lengthy for me. As if Kong wasn't done with three monster dinos, he still has to fight his way through the labyrinth of those eerie vines and climb down to land to fight the 'mother' dino of them all! The final city scenes were captivating, the sound and urgency of the situation was just perfect. Perhaps, just perhaps, Jackson felt that if the audience were led to the 'beauty killed the beast, not the guns' part, the death of Kong would seem cathartic and logical enough. I enjoyed the background score by James Newton Howard who compliments Kong's physical rage with the softest piano and orchestral notes, and yet, elevates it a notch above when the action gets going. All in all, Jackson doesn't disappoint, and neither does Serkis or Watts. Black was the disappointment for me. He was much, much better and natural in his magnum opus, School of Rock. In King Kong, he's just a naturally-good comedy actor trying to portray serious and cunning. He's failed miserably. Which is surprising, because his Ned Schneebly/Dewey Finn was an amazing and finely-balanced performance. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
saccyindJul 29, 2011
Jackson's King Kong With Best THE BEST Action Sequences And Great Music By James Newton Howard It's Not A Film But An Anthology Of True Love.Great Film

10/10
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
GreenlemonadeJul 3, 2011
This is my least favorite movie of all time.
In his attempt to make King Kong more like Lord of the Rings, Jackson has made an epic exposition of unbelievable events and stupidity. This movie is at least 1 hour too long and every action
This is my least favorite movie of all time.
In his attempt to make King Kong more like Lord of the Rings, Jackson has made an epic exposition of unbelievable events and stupidity. This movie is at least 1 hour too long and every action scene is less plausible than the last, removing all tension and immersion. There are no likable protagonists, villains or heroes and the plot and character development are more childish than an episode of Sponge Bob.
I truly hate this pile of crap that King Kong himself could not excrete from his massive anus.
Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
harlthegr8Aug 24, 2011
Special effects were out of this world awesome, and the storyline was pretty good...BUT...it was about an hour too long! It spends a good 40 minutes of the movie before it even gets to King Kong! then we still have to witness hisSpecial effects were out of this world awesome, and the storyline was pretty good...BUT...it was about an hour too long! It spends a good 40 minutes of the movie before it even gets to King Kong! then we still have to witness his capture/relationship with Naomi Watts' character, and his tirade in New York City! I have only been able to watch it all the way through in one sitting once. Also, Jack Black just drags the cast down. There are SOO many other great actors in the movie that he sticks out like a sore thumb. Great "try" but I expected better. Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
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
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
8
schwarz_kelloggDec 10, 2011
Quite good! The effects were tremendous. Even so is the fight scene between Kong & Dinosaurs!!! Very compelling!!! But after that, it's borin'... Too much effort in tellin' the Kong-going-NY story instead of the interaction between theQuite good! The effects were tremendous. Even so is the fight scene between Kong & Dinosaurs!!! Very compelling!!! But after that, it's borin'... Too much effort in tellin' the Kong-going-NY story instead of the interaction between the duo and the 'triangle'... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
DuffladJun 30, 2012
The more I watch this movie, the crappier it gets. Why? Because half of it is just screaming.. The acting was crap for the most part, I hate to **** talk Peter Jackson, but sorry man, this one was good for its time, but it has died to me.
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
6
FFStudiosNov 11, 2011
I'm honestly not sure how to start this off. First of all, lets get negatives out the way as usual: at over 3 hours long, the film feels bloated and stuffed with a noisy barrage of action sequences. Many of the creatures devised throughoutI'm honestly not sure how to start this off. First of all, lets get negatives out the way as usual: at over 3 hours long, the film feels bloated and stuffed with a noisy barrage of action sequences. Many of the creatures devised throughout the film (such as the V-rex) seem to go by the theory that 'the bigger it is, the scarier'. The film makes attempts at this cinematic intensity; with varying degrees of success ranging from surprising to plain flat. The action scenes are often disjointed and feel as if they are all competing to see who can make the most thrilling scene. Anyhow, rant over. The visual effects are admittitly very stunning, though sometimes overused. The acting is mostly solid and the underlying story isn't too bad, although the second act seems a complete jumbled narrative mess.
Overall, this is still a resonably made film that still manages to maintain its intensity and shock-and-awe moments when it needs to. Definately worth a look.
Expand
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
10
imthecriticNov 11, 2011
Saw this movie once again after a long time, and i still love it. Though better CGI will come in future years the emotions portrayed by kong will never fail to enthrall. Its a true masterpiece and the best kong movie made up-to date, thisSaw this movie once again after a long time, and i still love it. Though better CGI will come in future years the emotions portrayed by kong will never fail to enthrall. Its a true masterpiece and the best kong movie made up-to date, this will always be in my list of all time greatest movies. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
MrZeekoeNov 20, 2011
I dont care what other people say. For me it is one of the best movies ever! The action and graphics are awesome! Its just so sad that King Kong has to die so tragicly... I cry everytime I see the ending.... And im boy but i dont care...
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
8
Nero97Jan 9, 2012
Great movie, nice soundtrack and environment, but way to long. The movie is really good, but so long that it gets quite boring after some time...and it gets exciting again at the ending.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
skyminsterSep 20, 2013
King Kong may not be as good as some of Peter Jackson's incredible works, but is still amazing. It requires patience to watch the whole movie, as it is very long, slow and progressive, but it's worth it if you sit through the whole thing. TheKing Kong may not be as good as some of Peter Jackson's incredible works, but is still amazing. It requires patience to watch the whole movie, as it is very long, slow and progressive, but it's worth it if you sit through the whole thing. The camera-work is fantastic and captures moments brilliantly, and the music perfectly blends in with whichever scene/moment it is played in, especially when it is an emotional scene. This film isn't overly long and I don't understand why people complain about it's lengh, as it's a good thing that it's long, because it lets you think about whats happening and it lets you make the most of the moment; it's like a progressive rock song. The character building is superb and the acting is fantastic. The progressive feel to the film makes the finale all the more amazing, as the action, story and characters come together to make something spectacular, emotional and immensely gripping.

King Kong is a brilliant blend of action, adventure, and suspence. It is the film equivalent of a fantastic progressive rock song. So I give this film a 94/100!
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Critic2012Apr 21, 2012
With KING KONG, Peter Jackson has added yet another epic film to his resume'. Ground-breaking special effects, along with an excellent plot and cast, makes the film thoroughly engrossing, (and at times, terrifying). The only drawback is theWith KING KONG, Peter Jackson has added yet another epic film to his resume'. Ground-breaking special effects, along with an excellent plot and cast, makes the film thoroughly engrossing, (and at times, terrifying). The only drawback is the length. (And many agree on this point). The film could have intensified exponentially if only it was a good two and a half hours instead of three and change. Expand
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
10
JuanoloMar 31, 2012
First off, this is a 9.5 out of 10. Effects are spectacular. To king kong, to environments, to dinosaurs, to epic airplane battles, this movies have awesome visual effects. Score is good, Acting well done, and story is good. Probably long andFirst off, this is a 9.5 out of 10. Effects are spectacular. To king kong, to environments, to dinosaurs, to epic airplane battles, this movies have awesome visual effects. Score is good, Acting well done, and story is good. Probably long and pulled on but still good. Overall, great movie. A great blockbuster. 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
7
watithink123Apr 15, 2012
Best King Kong by a long shot. Worth watching with a friend and much better than the other ones. King Kong 7.4
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