King Kong

User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1346 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. StephenH.
    Aug 1, 2008
    6
    Generally an ok film, but i lost interest at certain points. I found the boat journey to the island the most enjoyable bit. Some fo the effects were very real, while others needed a bit more imagination and forgiveness, not that i'd ever rate a film on special effects anyway. We have no idea where all the natives disapeared to, i guess they just weren't required for the film. Generally an ok film, but i lost interest at certain points. I found the boat journey to the island the most enjoyable bit. Some fo the effects were very real, while others needed a bit more imagination and forgiveness, not that i'd ever rate a film on special effects anyway. We have no idea where all the natives disapeared to, i guess they just weren't required for the film. Overall it was enjoyable, but a tad long and in some places defying the laws of physics and chance in a lot of the action sequences to a point even the most openminded of people couldn't forgive. Expand
  2. GoffyA.
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    How bad can a movie be? In two words: KING KONG.
  3. JoshK.
    Jan 2, 2006
    10
    Simply amazing. One of the best, if not the best film this year.
  4. SimonC.
    Jan 3, 2006
    7
    >Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. OK. Since you asked, I'll try to address a couple of point you have raised. >And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to sleep. Well, it was an entire flagon of it, and it hit him right on the nose. Would that be enough to put a 25 foot gorilla to sleep? I don't >Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. OK. Since you asked, I'll try to address a couple of point you have raised. >And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to sleep. Well, it was an entire flagon of it, and it hit him right on the nose. Would that be enough to put a 25 foot gorilla to sleep? I don't know, but it's debatable, and therefore hardly a glaring plot hole. >Can anyone explain how he did not drown or how they lifted him on the damged little tug boat that could? When he fell unconscious, his was clearly shown resting on a rock, not in the water. Who knows how they got him to the boat. They may have been able to bring the ship closer and winch him aboard. Perhaps this is unlikely, but again, I wouldn't consider it to be a glaring plot hole. It's not a documentary, you know. >And if you want to believe that how did they feed him or contain him on his journey back to NYC? Do you want to tell me that they magically obtained steel chains that tied him to the damaged boat? Is it inconceivable that a boat and crew that specialises in capturing wild animals would have chains and sufficient food on board? I'd suggest they rigged up a cage and chains on the main cargo deck. >Well, if that's not bad enough when he arrives in NYC they had to have rehearsals before the native dance number with the blonde, not Ann Darrow, sacrifice right? How come he never reacted that entire time. I guess he waited for opening night to destroy NYC? The flashbulbs from the press clearly triggered his rage. The press would not have been there for rehearsals, only for opening night. > And if that wasn't enough, the ending in the winter with Ann without a coat in a light spring dress with high heels ascending up the ladder to the top of the tallest building in NYC was just the icing on the cake. So she was wearing the costume from that chorus girl show she was in, and didn't put on a cold because she ran outside in a rush after hearing the commotion. Is that such a big deal? >And by the way, where did the natives disappear to? Remember that they risked life and limb to kidnap Ann for Kong but somehow vanished when he got hit with a little teenie weenie bottle of chloroform. A) They cleared out when the sailors arrived with guns. B) I assume they would have cleared even further out when they heard Kong smashing the gate down. They weren't trying to feed Darrow to Kong because they love him, you know. It was a sacrifice. They were terrified of him. They wouldn't stick around to see what happened after he knocked the gate down. >You people raving about this trailer trash of a movie are totally insane. You are desparately in need of some professional help. I didn't think the movie was fantastic at all. I thought the compositing between CG and live action was often poor, and I loathe the jerky motion effect Jackson uses in the first encounter with the island natives, but most of the issues you have raised here are non-issues, given the fantastic premise of the film. If you want it to adhere stictly to the limits of reality, there would be NO 25 foot ape! Expand
  5. LouisM.
    Jan 6, 2006
    10
    I am very critical on movies and they need to really blow me away before I start saying good things. To describe this movie in words just does not make sense. It is a visual feast to say the least. It is filled with emotion and honesty. The depiction of Kong's personality is endearing. The movie frightens, humours, saddens, but most of all, entertains beyond belief. 3 hours never I am very critical on movies and they need to really blow me away before I start saying good things. To describe this movie in words just does not make sense. It is a visual feast to say the least. It is filled with emotion and honesty. The depiction of Kong's personality is endearing. The movie frightens, humours, saddens, but most of all, entertains beyond belief. 3 hours never felt this short. A movie for people who will never grow up and who will never stop believing in incredible fantasy. Films like these are the reason I go to the movies. Expand
  6. Dickie
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Jackson goes wild with his $200M box of crayons and crapola is the result. He miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. His first hour is boring and unncecessary. Then when we get to Jurassic Park the man loses all credibility with laughable writing, lack of editing, and poor directing. Half of this movie should have been omitted and perhaps with someone having some talent we could have had Jackson goes wild with his $200M box of crayons and crapola is the result. He miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. His first hour is boring and unncecessary. Then when we get to Jurassic Park the man loses all credibility with laughable writing, lack of editing, and poor directing. Half of this movie should have been omitted and perhaps with someone having some talent we could have had meaningful dialogue? But instead we get a mishmosh with Jackson playing with his CGI to his hearts content in producing a video game that only a ten year old with a lobotomized brain could love? In reading the reviews did some of you juvenile posters actually say this was the best movie ever? The fact that with all the PR Kong dropped from number one at the Box Office in less than 2 weeks says all that has to be said. This is a very poor effort by Jackson on the recent order of George Lucas. The only thing missing from this disaster was casting Tom Cruise. Jack Black and Tom Cruise in War of The Worlds. Two no-talents in blockbusters in the same year. Ugly! Expand
  7. CongoGongo
    Jan 9, 2006
    0
    If this movie was on the Gong Show it would be booed off the stage. Just a total joke with bad directing by an otherwise overrated in love with himself Peter Jackson. Jack Black needs to find another career. Preposterous.
  8. GrahamS.
    Jan 9, 2006
    5
    At least an hour too long. Good performances from all actors, and special effects - but I was completely bored by this stage.
  9. DavidD.
    Feb 20, 2006
    1
    Gorilla animation fine, tho out of scale most of the time,.Way too long and needlessly gory - bad for kids.
  10. Mart
    Feb 6, 2006
    9
    I was surprised by how good this film is.I didn't enjoy any of the LOTR films(I must be the only person on Earth) but Jackson redeemed himself with this one.Once the action starts it rarely stops.Unlike the LOTR I didn't feel the time go.Also, Jack Black is very entertaining in the Orson Welles-type role.
  11. JackM.
    Apr 1, 2006
    5
    The middle hour on Skull Island is utterly fantastic. The first and third hours, however, are devoid of anything beyond showy SFX razzledazzle. If you come an hour late and leave an hour early, you won't miss anything.
  12. AnthonyS.
    Dec 22, 2005
    10
    One of the best blockbusters i have seen in recent memory. i mean sure its flawed, but i was never bored through out the 3 hours, which says something. now only jackson did a tighter edit, then we have a true action masterpiece!
  13. IGiveUp
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    I give up. I truly do. The professional critics had to be bought and paid to give the fabulous reviews they gave. Let me set the record straight. This is a total bomb. A remake with heart and soul. There is little if any meaningful dialogue and the entire movie is without substance. Jack Black is simply awful. Adrian Brody is totally miscast. As for the story it unravels way too long and I give up. I truly do. The professional critics had to be bought and paid to give the fabulous reviews they gave. Let me set the record straight. This is a total bomb. A remake with heart and soul. There is little if any meaningful dialogue and the entire movie is without substance. Jack Black is simply awful. Adrian Brody is totally miscast. As for the story it unravels way too long and is quite frankly boring. There is no suspense as we all know the story. And how was KONG the only gorilla on the island when every other species was tenfold. Does it make sense that KONG the master of the island and the only one with intelligence was the last of his species. And how did the natives build the great wall without being eaten alive? And since the natives sacrificed women to KONG to be eaten how come they did nothing to save him when he was knocked out by the mildest form of anesthesia from one small bottle of chloroform in a wide open environment. It wouldn't put us to sleep let alone a 25 foot 4 ton gorilla. As for the small damaged ship and taking KONG back to NYC without him destroying the ship, well pehaps he took in the rays while laying on a chaise lounge with hot babe Naomi Watts by his side? This story was absolutely preposterous. You would have to have the brain of an amoeba to believe any of this crap. Avoid this turkey at all costs. Gobble -Gobble. Expand
  14. MikeG.
    Dec 20, 2005
    3
    A big disappointment, especially for a movie that did a great job of ratcheting up the tension in the first hour or so of the movie. Jackson also made 1932 NYC look spectacular, gave motivation to Black, Watts and the rest of the cast. Suddenly, the movie morphed into a B-picture, complete with action movie cliche after action movie cliche that just made the audience squirm and groan. The A big disappointment, especially for a movie that did a great job of ratcheting up the tension in the first hour or so of the movie. Jackson also made 1932 NYC look spectacular, gave motivation to Black, Watts and the rest of the cast. Suddenly, the movie morphed into a B-picture, complete with action movie cliche after action movie cliche that just made the audience squirm and groan. The movie looks great, but it just felt long and ultimately boring. Why make this movie if all you're going to do is modernize the special effects? The story of man's inhumanity to beast is lost somewhere along the way here, resulting in nothing more than a technically spectacular director flexing his muscle. We all know Jackson can make a movie look great. Somehow, after his masterpiece "Return of the King", I was expecting so much more. Expand
  15. BillS.
    Dec 20, 2005
    10
    Best movie ever made. Let me go down in history as being the fist to have said this. This is one of cinema's oldest stories and PeterJackson's retelling of it is virtually flawless. Seeing it on the big screen is an epic experience that even Lucas' recent Star Wars films could not rival.
  16. TomP.
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    King Kong is truly remarkable in how horrific a production it is. I go to movies with mixed reviews generally with the hope that it may provice different meanings to different people, in other words, it is open to interpretation. No. There was nothing to this movie beyond action that suddenly and inexplicably grinds to a halt time and time again, followed endlessly by another dinosaur, King Kong is truly remarkable in how horrific a production it is. I go to movies with mixed reviews generally with the hope that it may provice different meanings to different people, in other words, it is open to interpretation. No. There was nothing to this movie beyond action that suddenly and inexplicably grinds to a halt time and time again, followed endlessly by another dinosaur, spider, or any number of conveniently-placed CGI-disasters approaching silently and unnoticed from behind. But this movie saddens me the most simply because I have remained earnestly and reasonably unconvinced of the elitist notion that the public was completely diluted and that everyone is essentially an idiot beyond ourselves. Well, congrats, American public, you have lost the faith of yet another in your approval of this film, and thanks Peter Jackson, for making me realize I actualy am smarter and less dim-witted than 90% of movie-goers today. You scammed me good with this one, got my $6.25 and the rest of the good people's in my theater. I feel that the only reason that more viewers didn't walk out of this movie besides me and my best friend was because it is unfortunately slightly embarrassing and, yes, "elitist", to throw up your hands in disgust in the middle of a movie theater and promtly leave. I used to firmly believe that ALL people were more complex that they first seem. Statistical discrimination, I guess, is justified. Expand
  17. GeorgeR.
    Dec 20, 2005
    2
    It would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except for the stunning scene atop the empire state building (i've never been more afraid of heights - praise to the background artists), there was noIt would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except for the stunning scene atop the empire state building (i've never been more afraid of heights - praise to the background artists), there was no motivation to make this movie again. kong still moves like the stop-motion animated creature from the 30's (too sharply or too laboriously), naomi watts looks like a bucktoothed flatchested hillbilly, and kong is kong is kong - no new insights. why were all these non-elements worth three hours of my life? if for whatever reason i ever taught a class in editing at an elementary school i would assign students this movie and ask them to make a one hour and 50 minute version. it would undoubtedly take them all of a half hour to do so. what were the filmmaker$ thinking? Expand
  18. GlennR.
    Dec 30, 2005
    1
    Simply put, 'King Kong' is a really bad movie. It's too long, it's poorly written, the dialog is awkward, there is no chemistry between the stars (with the exception of Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis), and it's miscast (it's clear that Jack Black was cast solely for his box office appeal, because he is not at all believable as a high-powered movie producer). Simply put, 'King Kong' is a really bad movie. It's too long, it's poorly written, the dialog is awkward, there is no chemistry between the stars (with the exception of Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis), and it's miscast (it's clear that Jack Black was cast solely for his box office appeal, because he is not at all believable as a high-powered movie producer). Many of the special effects looked no different to me than special effects in movies from the 70's -- or even the 30's for that matter -- so I'm not sure why we're supposed to be wowed by them. Many of the scenes were so drawn out and repetitive that I was actually bored. The subplots -- the romance and the coming of age story -- were listless and uninteresting. The only redeeming parts of the movie were the performances by the beautiful and talented Watts, who did a decent job making me think she actually cared about the ape, and by Serkis, who made the ape seem almost human at times. Other than that, I thought it was a complete waste of $9.75 and three hours. The ending is supposed to be sad, but instead I was mostly happy and relieved that it was over. Expand
  19. ET
    Dec 30, 2005
    2
    This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the above, which is why it lasts 3 hours. This movie shows the worst of human nature, up close and personal, repeatedly, over, and over again. Peter Jackson This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the above, which is why it lasts 3 hours. This movie shows the worst of human nature, up close and personal, repeatedly, over, and over again. Peter Jackson seems to have a penchant for extended repetition. I can't rate it a '0' because I stayed the whole way through. It was reasonably well produced. Naomi Watts is easy on the eyes. If it had been tightened up a I could have seen rating it a 7 or 8. A *LOT*, I say. But we all know editing is the hardest part, and if people are going to see it anyway, why bother? Spoiler: In the end, Naomi loses the hairy flare-nosed chimp and ends up with the hairy flare-nosed chump. Ta-da. Expand
  20. PinkRose
    Jan 11, 2006
    10
    The best I saw last 2005, and I bet many envy this movie for its quality, I can read that.
  21. RichardE.
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was simply awful. The directing was some of the worst I have ever seen. And the dialogue was awful too and made no sense. Add to this the film being I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was simply awful. The directing was some of the worst I have ever seen. And the dialogue was awful too and made no sense. Add to this the film being about twice as long as it should and it all adds up to one big mess. The story of Beauty and the Beast has been told many times. Peter Jackson has not done anything worthy of two hundred million dollars of wasted money. This is as bad a film that I have seen in a long long time. The movie isn't even out two weeks and the theaters are half full. It is a disaster at the box office despite the hoopla by idiots who act as if this is an original idea. Expand
  22. LuisC.
    Jan 10, 2006
    10
    Funny, goood, Amazing!, very enjoyable to be a fantastic film, made me feel all kind of emotions.
  23. Duncan
    Jan 13, 2006
    9
    Impressive and gripping, cgi not always on the spot and probably a tad too long.
  24. GamhaG.
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    The Incredible picture of the year 2005, I like it a lot.
  25. Criticexpert
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    After Brokeback Mountain this is the Best !, Magnificent, Colossal.
  26. C.B.
    Jan 17, 2006
    6
    Yes, the CGI is amazing. But, do we really need to see thi smuch? This movie was way, way too long. I was done watching at the 2 hour and 30 minute mark.
  27. perryb
    Jan 10, 2006
    3
    I guess that if you give an infinite number of nerds an infinite number of computer graphics workstations then this is the best that can be hoped for - a film that only a fan boy can love.
  28. Rickie
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Remember the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS? Well, KING KONG is AS BAD AS IT GETS! This was one long drawnout farce of a flick. Peter Jackson should be ashamed. No acting, no directing, no dialogue and just plain out STUPID!
  29. VinceM.
    Jan 1, 2006
    10
    In my opinion Peter Jackson is one of the best directors of our time, this movie is one of the best of the year, a little long but you couldn't tell his version of this story one and half hours
  30. ROSEOFEnsenada
    Jan 2, 2006
    10
    Only one word... Excelent, poor of those who can not enjoy fantasy movies, only want see wars, please, change the world!, 10.
  31. StephanieD.
    Jan 20, 2006
    10
    I loved this film, it was great. All the way through i didnt know what to expect and the effects were brill!!! i am definatly getting it on dvd when it comes out, this had something foe everyone and was one of the best films of the year, and the cast were great. Defiantly a must see, and i would see it again and again!!!
  32. DaveC.
    Jan 3, 2006
    8
    I find it hilarious that people are giving KING KONG bad reviews based on plausibility!!?? This was supposed to be big, dumb, and fun. Did you all miss the first two versions? Were you expecting a Woody Allen or Fellini film?? This was Peter Friggin Jackson doing King Kong!! You guys sound so stupid saying things like, "the T-Rex fight was so unrealistic". Of course it was!! LOL! Or, "how I find it hilarious that people are giving KING KONG bad reviews based on plausibility!!?? This was supposed to be big, dumb, and fun. Did you all miss the first two versions? Were you expecting a Woody Allen or Fellini film?? This was Peter Friggin Jackson doing King Kong!! You guys sound so stupid saying things like, "the T-Rex fight was so unrealistic". Of course it was!! LOL! Or, "how did they get him to New York"? Who gives a crap!? It's a MOVIE about a 4 ton gorilla!! Go with it. Have some fun. It isn't "Sideways" for godsakes(totally overrated crap BTW). I also love the criticism that "it was too long". I guess this is a bad thing in the year 2006. I guess people are just too busy these days to sit in a movie and just ENJOY themselves? How silly. Kong rocked and was the most fun I've ever had in a theater. A total blast! Expand
  33. AndyP.
    Jan 3, 2006
    1
    I guess Charles you have to be about 12 years old or else you would not have written the ridiculous review in which you gave this trash a perfect ten? You're excused. Ann loved Kong the way we love our dogs. After all he saved her life on more than one occassion, so wouldn't you too? So what's your point? Did she protest to anyone about bringing him back to NY to face his I guess Charles you have to be about 12 years old or else you would not have written the ridiculous review in which you gave this trash a perfect ten? You're excused. Ann loved Kong the way we love our dogs. After all he saved her life on more than one occassion, so wouldn't you too? So what's your point? Did she protest to anyone about bringing him back to NY to face his certain death? NO! Why? Because then it wouldn't be the rip off of the 19311 movie which was great. The acting with all due respect was wooden and superficial. There was no chemistry between Naomi and Adrian. Jack Black better stick to the School Of Rock as he was miscast here. The directing was terrible and the script was lame. Unless you care to explain away all of the inconsistencies in the story? Not a single one of you has attempted to do that because you know it would be impossible to do. The special effects were what they are but was there any new idea seen? No. This was just a video game for youngsters with ADD. If it entertained you that's great. Now the proof that this movie is a turkey is that after two weeks it has lost its number one ranking at the box office. This is from a movie that the critics who were bought and paid for raved about. Obviously word of mouth that this is an awful piece of work has spread on the street. How can this film be out of number one in less than three weeks? And it was replaced by a cartoon that has been out longer than this has. Peter Jackson got a free pass and has now joined George Lucas as a one dimensional character himself. All in all King Kong was terrible and is definitely not worth the price of admission. Avoid. Expand
  34. AoifeG.
    Jan 3, 2006
    8
    Overall-Very good. For me there were three main problems... no.1- It really dragged on at the start it took too long to get into the actual story. no.2-When Carl was showing his discovery to everyone back in America he didn't bother telling them about the dinosours. In my opinion dinosours are more important about a giant ape.
  35. I'mSorryMsJackson
    Jan 3, 2006
    5
    Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and where I lost a lot of weight. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and where I lost a lot of weight. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, whereupon I was released under strict supervision. The actors were often unable to understand my various grunts, but I felt this created an exciting atmosphere on set, one where noone knew what they were doing. I also tended to throw the camera around when I got bored, but I think this adds to the film's dynamism. It is a shame that I accidentally urinated on the motion control rig, because it created a constant crane loop, sorry about this. Unfortunately the editing room was too small to contain my monkey vitality and we lost one editor cos I chewed on his nose and bashed on his ballsarea. This may have given the film an irregular tempo, but one I'm sure hairy animals will enjoy. On a personal note, I chose to keep the movie long to reproduce how I felt when I was caged in downtown Auckland. There were a few regrettable incidents, like when I threw Jack Black cos I mistook him for a log, but my only real regret is there hadn't been such a debilitating shortage of bananas when we wrote the script. Expand
  36. JeffH.
    Jan 4, 2006
    5
    Entertaining, but not even close to the hype. Naomi Watts was good, but the extremely fake dinosaur scenes ruined the movie, and there were a lot of them. And there were truly bizarre moments, particularly when Naomi Watts starts juggling and doing acrobatic stunts for Kong. Yeah, that's believable.
  37. EmW
    Jan 5, 2006
    10
    I was really blown away by this!!! Just... WOW!!! I haven't seen a movie this entertaining for me except the Lord of the Rings movies! This film had some of the greatest special effects I have ever seen, and the acting between the two leads was fantastic! (I loved Jack Black aswell) But people. . .Boring?. .Too long?. . .You have got to be kidding me! Don't people enjoy movies I was really blown away by this!!! Just... WOW!!! I haven't seen a movie this entertaining for me except the Lord of the Rings movies! This film had some of the greatest special effects I have ever seen, and the acting between the two leads was fantastic! (I loved Jack Black aswell) But people. . .Boring?. .Too long?. . .You have got to be kidding me! Don't people enjoy movies these days! They were the quickest and most fun 3 hours I have ever spent at the cinema, yeah so what the first hour had no Kong, but it's called telling the story and if taking it back to that time in the 1930's (how it was in the original film) isn't respectful to the original and doesn't show dedication to the craft. . . then pigs fly. Unrealistic? COME ON!!! Was Lord of the Rings realistic??? Hmmm. . . then what about Harry Potter? The Chronicles of Narnia anyone? The Descent? Spiderman? Dont get me wrong, their all great films, though unrealistic, but who cares! It's called E.N.T.E.R.T.A.I.N.M.E.N.T and nothing has to make sense in films thats the beauty of films in gerneral and the freedom you get with making them. Why can't King Kong fight 3 T-Rex's?! This idea was used to convey the strength of Kong and the lengths he would go to in order to keep his beloved safe. It seems to me that these days people lack imagination! It's not meant to be very tangible! LOL! Hey, it's a good film if YOU enjoyed it. I even recommended it to one of my good friends and she LOVED it as much as me!! The relationship between King Kong and Ann was lovely and very romantic!!! (The Central Park scene especially!!) King was such a dreamboat of an ape!! You could definitley tell that she felt the same way and that no male would ever make such an impression on her as Kong has, she needs him and likewise. You knew that she would have chosen Kong if she had the choice, compared to Jack Driscoll. I wish guys would protect me like that (if ever i was in danger, etc!) But he wasn't just protective, he was also faithful to her! He searched for her when he escaped from the chains in New York And that sunset scene when he patted his chest like Ann did earlier with him, brought tears to my eyes. "Beautiful" says Ann, I could'nt of put it better myself. :) Expand
  38. Filmfan
    Jan 6, 2006
    6
    I was completely bored, and disappointed that Peter Jackson did not bring anything original to the movie. It is way too long and seems to be going through the motions. He studied Spielberg and The Titanic way too much before making this film.
  39. Elliott
    Jan 7, 2006
    10
    People who are commenting on the plausibility of King Kong are bafoons. This movie stays so true to the original story while also expanding on it and bringing it to life in the new millennium. This movie is outstanding, definitely the best big-budget film of the year. People who give something like this a zero must be working on a negative scale. King Kong is fantastic, simply stunning.
  40. HoobyDooby
    Jan 8, 2006
    2
    This movie had me completely bored. First off: there's no likeable characters. The Jack Black character gives you the impression that he's insane, like in the scenes where they're running from dinosaurs and he's just sitting their filming it. You don't feel much affection for Kong (unlike the original). He doesn't show that much emotion. And the Naomi Watts This movie had me completely bored. First off: there's no likeable characters. The Jack Black character gives you the impression that he's insane, like in the scenes where they're running from dinosaurs and he's just sitting their filming it. You don't feel much affection for Kong (unlike the original). He doesn't show that much emotion. And the Naomi Watts character comes off as insane, as she professes to everyone that she LOVES the monkey. When you are in LOVE with a thousand-pound gorilla, people are not going to like your character. So, basically, what we got here is no likeably characters in a story we've heard thousands of times before. If it wasn't for the $200 million is special effects, I would give this a zero. Expand
  41. Alice
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Most of this film belongs on the floor after being edited. The writing is awful and the story convoluted. Contrary to what others have said, this version of Kong loosely follows the original. The dialogue and the action scenes make no sense. The conflicts on Skull Island are illogical and even if we want to suspend all belief it still is comical in nature. About the only think this flick Most of this film belongs on the floor after being edited. The writing is awful and the story convoluted. Contrary to what others have said, this version of Kong loosely follows the original. The dialogue and the action scenes make no sense. The conflicts on Skull Island are illogical and even if we want to suspend all belief it still is comical in nature. About the only think this flick is good for is a video game with its flashing lights and bells. Jackson bombed. Expand
  42. Hassan
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Horrendous and a total waste of 200m. This was a joke. The audience started walking out in the middle. Bad script, bad actoring, and awful directing. Jackson is one trick wonder.
  43. Paul
    Jan 9, 2006
    8
    This movie was definitely worth the watch. My only complaint was that it was too long. King Kong looked incredibly real and the actors did a pretty good job. The action scenes were incredible, especially the one with Kong vs. the T Rex (in the vines!!!) There are too many people giving it a 10 because they like it or a 0 because they don't. Well, it's somewhere in between. This movie was definitely worth the watch. My only complaint was that it was too long. King Kong looked incredibly real and the actors did a pretty good job. The action scenes were incredible, especially the one with Kong vs. the T Rex (in the vines!!!) There are too many people giving it a 10 because they like it or a 0 because they don't. Well, it's somewhere in between. People should start to rate fairly. Anyways, go see the movie. It's one that you'll appreciate more on the big screen. Just be sure your seats are comfortable before the show starts. Expand
  44. MattiÄ.
    Jan 9, 2006
    3
    This was worse than I thought. The trip in the Skull Iland was very good part of the movie. But all other things were so trash.
  45. HerschelW.
    Feb 6, 2006
    0
    This movie was terrible. A waste of time and money. The screenplay was idiotic. The acting was even worse with Jack Black totally miscast. He is one dimensional and did not fit the role. CGI was okay but not anything spectacular. Adrian Brody did not fit as the hero. Jackson really made an iferrior film that is way too long. The depression had nothing to do with the original Kong and was This movie was terrible. A waste of time and money. The screenplay was idiotic. The acting was even worse with Jack Black totally miscast. He is one dimensional and did not fit the role. CGI was okay but not anything spectacular. Adrian Brody did not fit as the hero. Jackson really made an iferrior film that is way too long. The depression had nothing to do with the original Kong and was just wasted filler. The Skull Island action scenes were awful and made no sense. Mutant bugs? C'mon give me a break. Where did the natives disappear too and how did their great Wall protect them? Ridiculous plot. Just a poor remake of Jurassic Park. Avoid. Expand
  46. SamX.
    Apr 1, 2006
    4
    A valiant effort by Peter Jackson but the idea just doesn't wash with me. I would be rating it 10/10 if it wasn't for it's monotony and slowness. The film should've been shortened by an hour. Ann Darrow's neck should've snapped three seconds after being waved around by the enormous CGI monstrocity, but instead her hair stayed in place and her dress was still A valiant effort by Peter Jackson but the idea just doesn't wash with me. I would be rating it 10/10 if it wasn't for it's monotony and slowness. The film should've been shortened by an hour. Ann Darrow's neck should've snapped three seconds after being waved around by the enormous CGI monstrocity, but instead her hair stayed in place and her dress was still clean by the end of the movie. The 1933 version seems more realistic than this. Collapse
  47. JoeY.
    Apr 2, 2006
    7
    It rises to a 7 only because of the relationship between Naomi Watts and Kong. Their scenes together are as wondrous as any on film. The tenderness and trust and playfulness of these two characters will bring tears to your eyes. As for the rest of the film, I thought the performances were stiff, the casting choice of the other leads were poor and the action sequences were overwhelming, in It rises to a 7 only because of the relationship between Naomi Watts and Kong. Their scenes together are as wondrous as any on film. The tenderness and trust and playfulness of these two characters will bring tears to your eyes. As for the rest of the film, I thought the performances were stiff, the casting choice of the other leads were poor and the action sequences were overwhelming, in other words the money moved far too quickly to develop suspense and allows us to experience Skull Island throught the eyes of the characters. Without Watts and Kong, this movie would be a 0, a huge dud. But again, their scenes together are well worth the price of admission. Expand
  48. Neil
    Apr 2, 2006
    6
    Too long, too many special effects shots (the scene where the crew is running from the dinosaurs looks phony), and the ending fails to resonate. The first third builds palpable fear of what's coming, but once the movie moves to the island it gets bogged down in sci-fi.
  49. EdwinK.
    Apr 7, 2006
    4
    Did Peter make this movie just for himself and his children??? Highly unrealistic, overdone, way too long, bad acting, bad plots, fortunately I could stop my rented copy when it all became too much. Sad to see such stuff come out of PJ's hand. Couldn't do it without Tolkien?
  50. FrancoH.
    Aug 2, 2006
    10
    King Kong, bitches! Peter Jackson does it once again!
  51. AditiT.
    Aug 30, 2006
    7
    it is a nice movie but still some suspence should also be there.
  52. NickA.
    Oct 30, 2007
    9
    I
  53. Balzac
    Oct 7, 2007
    6
    Like the Big Ape himself, this movie is bloated with too much flab. Kong himself looks like Mighty Joe Young. They made him too small. The scene where Kong wipes the jungle floor with 3 T-Rexes is overkill an not believable. But hey, it's a picture about a giant ape and his blond girlfriend.
  54. Andiev
    Jul 2, 2007
    8
    the movie was pretty good, i did cry a little at the end, when king kong fell off the empire state building, the actors and actresses were very skilled, naomi watts was excellent, the jungle insects scared me and i think my money didn't completely go to waste. peter jackson is an amazing director.
  55. ShaneB.
    Jan 12, 2008
    8
    This is my review of King Kong. Pretty much, it's about Ann Darrow, a woman who, after losing her job in 1933, is offered to be in a movie by a rebellious filmmaker, named Carl Denham, who trying to make a movie. They go on a ship and end up at skull island, where Ann is sacrificed to the ape Kong. Now the only reason i wanted to see this movie was because it was directed by Peter This is my review of King Kong. Pretty much, it's about Ann Darrow, a woman who, after losing her job in 1933, is offered to be in a movie by a rebellious filmmaker, named Carl Denham, who trying to make a movie. They go on a ship and end up at skull island, where Ann is sacrificed to the ape Kong. Now the only reason i wanted to see this movie was because it was directed by Peter Jackson. So, all in all, it was one of the best movies of 2005. the acting was okay, the action was spectacular. Yet the special effects was mixed. Some effects were awesome, like Kong. Yet others were no good at all. So this is a good film to see. I give Kong 2005 an 8/10. Expand
  56. KevinP.
    Dec 12, 2005
    8
    Amber A. writes: 'Some scenes on the Island were a little too reminiscent of Jurassic Park.' Um, I hope she understands that Jurassic Park borrowed from King Kong, not the other way around. But I suppose that's a problem when showing one of the most classic films of all time to a new audience, one that is much younger and less informed. The film does not tread much new Amber A. writes: 'Some scenes on the Island were a little too reminiscent of Jurassic Park.' Um, I hope she understands that Jurassic Park borrowed from King Kong, not the other way around. But I suppose that's a problem when showing one of the most classic films of all time to a new audience, one that is much younger and less informed. The film does not tread much new ground - it's a faithful, and intentionally so, remake of the original (let's not think of the first remake, shall we?). Updated with familiar faces and a stunning marriage of live-action and CGI, this Kong allows for more emotional connections between the audience and the ape. Expand
  57. EddieB.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    King Kong is the best film I've seen all year. Amazing action sequences, a great story with heart, and brilliant special effects make this film a must-see for anyone. I hear the game's not too shabby either--might have to check that out!
  58. EricW.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Simply wonderful.
  59. PatrickW.
    Dec 15, 2005
    9
    I am unable to understand the low scores people must have decided to hate it before seeing it!!!
  60. Bob
    Dec 15, 2005
    0
    Lets call a spade a spade. If you are so fascinated by special effects there are plenty of video games you could buy that can entertain your ADD. But to give this crapola high marks when the acting is so awful and the story unoriginal is beyond all imagination. Jack Black and Adrian Brody sucked. Its that pure and simple. The movie dragged on forever. There was no dialogue, no chemistry Lets call a spade a spade. If you are so fascinated by special effects there are plenty of video games you could buy that can entertain your ADD. But to give this crapola high marks when the acting is so awful and the story unoriginal is beyond all imagination. Jack Black and Adrian Brody sucked. Its that pure and simple. The movie dragged on forever. There was no dialogue, no chemistry between the two stars; unless of course you mean The Big Ape and the girl. As for Adrian Brody I think she wanted to puke. The story is dated and totally implausable with more holes than Carter has Little Liver Pills. Don't be blindsighted by the Hollywood Left Wing. This movie is awful and I wouldn't watch it again unless you placed bamboo shoots in both of my eyes. Come to think of it I think the racist natives had bamboo shoots coming out of their eyes and every other oraface in their face. Nestle should be very proud that they sponsored a racist scene. Didn't anyone look at how the natives were portrayed? Talk about sterotyping, oh my God. This movie was preposterous and about two hours too long. Avoid at all costs. Expand
  61. Jakefreydont-A.
    Dec 16, 2005
    2
    I didn't give it a 0 because I did enjoy the first 45 minutes, you know, the part with the dialog. The rest is just a loud obnoxious video game. There was no reason for this movie to get made, it is so boring, what a waste of $200 mil. and I'm sure peter jackson thinks he's a great director.... sad.
  62. E.B.
    Dec 16, 2005
    9
    Peter Jackson is becoming known for his 3 hour movies...which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it.
  63. PaulH.
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    Please tell me I was dreaming. This is so bad that I can't even find the right words to condem it. The first hour was slow and boring and did nothing in developing the characters. The second hour bordered on ridiculous with a remake of Jurassic Park. As for the destruction of NY it was laughable. I especially loved the last scene with Naomi Watts in the middle of winter standing with Please tell me I was dreaming. This is so bad that I can't even find the right words to condem it. The first hour was slow and boring and did nothing in developing the characters. The second hour bordered on ridiculous with a remake of Jurassic Park. As for the destruction of NY it was laughable. I especially loved the last scene with Naomi Watts in the middle of winter standing with high heels in a spring dress at the very top of the crown on the Empire State Buidling on her toes with Adrian Brody. One gust of wind and the movie would have had a realistic ending as both would have been blown away. I think Kong committed suicide because he was embarrassed by this sorry excuse for a motion picture. Awful. Expand
  64. PDWrite
    Dec 17, 2005
    4
    Die, Kong, Die! When he's passing out on the island I thought, my god, are we going to have to go through this again? But I was wrong--it seemed like we had to go through the same mournful, incredibly slooooowww gazes another ten times! Her face is great, his face is great, the expressions are wonderful--but too long, and Jackson doesn't seem to even know what dialogue is. I was Die, Kong, Die! When he's passing out on the island I thought, my god, are we going to have to go through this again? But I was wrong--it seemed like we had to go through the same mournful, incredibly slooooowww gazes another ten times! Her face is great, his face is great, the expressions are wonderful--but too long, and Jackson doesn't seem to even know what dialogue is. I was entertained, but please, go back to elf-talk or something. Plus, I still want to punch Adrian Brody in the nose as much as Halle Berry did at the oscars. Expand
  65. Drtim
    Dec 18, 2005
    10
    Remarkable. Unspoken love, maternal reverie, empathic connectedness; the relationship between the Naomi Watts characterand the digital ape/Andy Serkis is the transcendent heart of this film. In tapping something deeply innate it tolls for us all.
  66. SteveE.
    Dec 18, 2005
    10
    This movie is the best thing ever set to celluloid. Phenomenal and beautiful, this film is definitly the best film of the year. Anyone who doesn't like it has no soul.
  67. Sharif
    Dec 19, 2005
    9
    Very Good movie, I have no complaints about the length of the movie, since i liked it i dont see why i should'nt get more of what i like and make the most of my money, and it also sets the flow of the movie. while watching felt sorry for Mr. Kong all the while telling him in my head Yeah budy women do that to you, they mess up your head and that is the end result.
  68. Rex
    Dec 19, 2005
    1
    Peter Jackson says, "The original only had one dinosaur, so let's make it two! We need to be bigger, no ginormous compared to the first." The studio says "but three t-rex's will get more people in the seats, make it more . . ."Peter Jackson interjects,
  69. I'mSorryMsJackson
    Dec 21, 2005
    10
    Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and where I lost a lot of weight. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and where I lost a lot of weight. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, whereupon I was released under strict supervision. The actors were often unable to understand my various grunts, but I felt this created an exciting atmosphere on set, one where noone knew what they were doing. I also tended to throw the camera around when I got bored, but I think this adds to the film's dynamism. It is a shame that I accidentally urinated on the motion control rig, because it created a constant crane loop, sorry about this. Unfortunately the editing room was too small to contain my monkey vitality and we lost one editor cos I chewed on his nose and bashed on his ballsarea. This may have given the film an irregular tempo, but one I'm sure hairy animals will enjoy. On a personal note, I chose to keep the movie long to reproduce how I felt when I was caged in downtown Auckland. There were a few regrettable incidents, like when I threw Jack Black cos I mistook him for a log, but my only real regret is there hadn't been such a debilitating shortage of bananas when we wrote the script. Expand
  70. PcFan
    Dec 20, 2005
    8
    Very entaining movie very polished and keeps you entertained from start to finish. only a complete idiot who has nothing better to do would give this movie a 3/10.
  71. GaryF.
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    Are you kidding me? Refund! This is about the lamest alleged blockbuster I have ever seen. It is boring and without dialogue. The actors especially Jack Black are simply awful. And the middle part in Jurassic Park land are you kidding. Invisible machine gun bullets. T-Rex's hanging from a vine doing their impersonation of the WWF and those natives in blackpaint? C'mon give me a Are you kidding me? Refund! This is about the lamest alleged blockbuster I have ever seen. It is boring and without dialogue. The actors especially Jack Black are simply awful. And the middle part in Jurassic Park land are you kidding. Invisible machine gun bullets. T-Rex's hanging from a vine doing their impersonation of the WWF and those natives in blackpaint? C'mon give me a break. The story was totally implausible. Do you think Peter Jackson went to Steven Spielberg and said I can make a moron movie worse than War Of the Freakin Worlds? Let me tell you it is very close to that abomination. People were booing and laughing and then walking out of the theater. And don't bother coming during the first seventy minutes unless of course you need to catch up on your sleep. This is a disaster beyond all imagination. Expand
  72. SchpilkyBluey
    Dec 21, 2005
    10
    The best movie I have seen a long while.
  73. FatimaI.
    Dec 20, 2005
    10
    The movie was the second best movie I ever saw. at the end the movie was so sad. everyone in my family saw it and they all said it was the best movie ever.
  74. SteveC.
    Dec 20, 2005
    8
    Yeah its long in strange places, short in others, but still a fantastic movie . CG were good to excellent, acting a bit cheesy at times (Black, Watts at the start) but why do we go to movies? to analyse or be entertained? hmmm...
  75. MichaelL.
    Dec 23, 2005
    6
    Only one hour too long.
  76. AurelioS.
    Dec 23, 2005
    10
    great film, una pasada.
  77. JoshuaS.
    Dec 23, 2005
    5
    Insulting in its attempt to subvert the racism inherit in the story, sub-Jurrasic Park level dinosaur effects. Too long by 45 minutes and yet still mildly entertaining.
  78. Jack
    Dec 26, 2005
    10
    By the general public, this movie is extremely underrated. Peter Jackson does an AMAZING job of keeping to the original storyline as precisely as possible, but still making it his own. With amazing CGI, awsome performances by Naomi Watts and Jack Black, and a completely orignal and untampered storyline, this movies becomes larger than life. The orginal plot is based around King By the general public, this movie is extremely underrated. Peter Jackson does an AMAZING job of keeping to the original storyline as precisely as possible, but still making it his own. With amazing CGI, awsome performances by Naomi Watts and Jack Black, and a completely orignal and untampered storyline, this movies becomes larger than life. The orginal plot is based around King Kong's love for Naomi Watts character, and Peter Jackson does an amazing job at keeping that aparrent in his movie. All who dislike this movie are just pretentious pricks who dislike any movie that gets aclaim, or really is just plain blind. It's amazing, it certifies Peter Jackson as a genious auture. Expand
  79. JoseC.
    Dec 26, 2005
    8
    The is long much longer then it needed to be. However, it is still a good movie. if you can't sit still or have finite attention spans. stay home
  80. RichardD.
    Dec 29, 2005
    3
    It was not believable enough and too long.
  81. LarryS.
    Dec 29, 2005
    3
    Aww come on! Do we really need another remake. Another King Kong. Yikes what a stupid idea by the American movie industry. Here's an idea how about an original idea with some good writing that makes you think. Special effects were poorly done considering the technology available. Naomi Watts what were you thinking! Another non stop action movie with nothing to say. Ugggghhhh! A movie Aww come on! Do we really need another remake. Another King Kong. Yikes what a stupid idea by the American movie industry. Here's an idea how about an original idea with some good writing that makes you think. Special effects were poorly done considering the technology available. Naomi Watts what were you thinking! Another non stop action movie with nothing to say. Ugggghhhh! A movie for tweenies!!! Expand
  82. Matt
    Dec 8, 2005
    8
    The first hour is so bad, you'll think it's an elaborate joke
  83. Martin
    Dec 8, 2005
    10
    Unbelievable!
  84. JonR.
    Dec 9, 2005
    10
    Stunning. Jaw-dropping. Emotional. Adrenaline-rushed. Need I go on? Just go and see it. You'll be amazed.
  85. AmberA.
    Dec 9, 2005
    7
    This film did not need to be three hours long. There were many parts that could've been cut and it would've made a much tighter movie. Some scenes on the Island were a little too reminiscent of Jurassic Park. Also, you may note that the first people to die when they are traipsing around the jungle are the black man and the chinese man. Some editing incontinuties were hard to missThis film did not need to be three hours long. There were many parts that could've been cut and it would've made a much tighter movie. Some scenes on the Island were a little too reminiscent of Jurassic Park. Also, you may note that the first people to die when they are traipsing around the jungle are the black man and the chinese man. Some editing incontinuties were hard to miss - such as when Ann and Jack fall into the water from a giant bat's leg, and are both shown in the next scene with completely dry hair flowing in the wind. However, the relationship between Ann and King Kong is touching and well-captured. And the Empire State Building Scene is riveting-especially if you're scared of heights. My summary: this is a perfect Blockbuster film: lots of action, amazing special effects, bad dialogue, and almost no character development or depth (except maybe in King Kong) . Expand
  86. JimP.
    Dec 9, 2005
    8
    Very well done and exciting, with Kong an amazing creation. The Skull Island adventures eventually drag on a bit -- the excitement become a bit dulled by repetition -- and there are are few others infelicitious moments and repetitions, but if you are a moviegoer at all inclined towards this type of movie, you will be quite satisfied by the movie.
  87. LoreenaT.
    Jan 11, 2006
    10
    I just want to say, that this movie should win Oscars, precious!. Goooood.
  88. Socrates
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Wow. I couldn't have asked for a worse New Years Eve party than going to to see this movie. It was long and boring as hell, and nothing felt connected; everything seemed like a short, stupid scene that had no relation to the next ("We're running from dinosaurs! Now we're shooting at King Kong!"). The CGI felt as weightless and lifeless as all CGI in almost every movie Wow. I couldn't have asked for a worse New Years Eve party than going to to see this movie. It was long and boring as hell, and nothing felt connected; everything seemed like a short, stupid scene that had no relation to the next ("We're running from dinosaurs! Now we're shooting at King Kong!"). The CGI felt as weightless and lifeless as all CGI in almost every movie I've seen does. Jackson shows just how truly literal and thoughtless he is with this film, for here he could have made any number of important statements regarding a slew of problems in the world. Instead, he opts to make a complete remake of the original film, complete with all the racial stereotypes of the time. Entertainment Weekly just said that Jackson is the new Spielberg, and since Spielberg isn't even done yet, I guess we can all be excited for twice as many overbloated, self serious and cranially incapacitated movies each year. Joy. Expand
  89. TylerD.
    Jan 10, 2006
    10
    King Kong is one amazing achievement. Kong himself was animated beautifully, and the atmosphere of the movie is incredible. Highly reccomendable. This isn't the same at home. It needs to be seen in theaters.
  90. AndyT.
    Jan 10, 2006
    10
    My favorite of 2005, Excelent direction of Art.
  91. DavidR.
    Jan 1, 2006
    1
    This movie is an oppressive three hours of cinematic effects, and noise. Just further proof that Hollywood is not only lacking in originality, but is increasingly throwing computer generated effects at the hoi poloi. This is more proof that real art (in the movies) in Holloywood is dead. All we get anymore, so it seems, is noise and excitement. If you want real art, go and see live This movie is an oppressive three hours of cinematic effects, and noise. Just further proof that Hollywood is not only lacking in originality, but is increasingly throwing computer generated effects at the hoi poloi. This is more proof that real art (in the movies) in Holloywood is dead. All we get anymore, so it seems, is noise and excitement. If you want real art, go and see live theater. At least you can see some talent. Expand
  92. IvancitoL.
    Jan 12, 2006
    10
    This is the movie of the year 2005!, has everything and full of brightness, funny, scary and emotional.
  93. Annalisa
    Jan 1, 2006
    4
    While there were great suspense gasping-for-air, mind blowingstuff happening in the movie, it was way too long - from getting to the island to being on the island. I was like "Hurry up and get to New York already!!"- Animal attacks overdone, and by the time he was on top of the tower, it was like "kill him already". There could have been more deleted scenes.
  94. PavonG.
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    I already want to buy the DVD, is one of the best I have ever seen, and I have seen thousands.
  95. SamD.
    Jan 1, 2006
    5
    Great special effects. Jack Black was good. An hour to long.
  96. Chipytita
    Jan 16, 2006
    10
    Wonderfull and Fantastic, thats why I like to go to the movies, to see this kind of movies.
  97. ChongKokH.
    Jan 1, 2006
    10
    I think it's a very good movie if you can get what it tries to tell from the movie. I may not understand it completely or may have thought too much. But it's very touching. Imagine a lonely child trying to protect something he loved and died tragically when he try to give the best to his beloved.
  98. DouglasK
    Oct 18, 2006
    10
    A Terrific film.
  99. rostokov
    Oct 19, 2006
    4
    Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and grew a beard. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, whereupon I was Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and grew a beard. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, whereupon I was released under strict supervision. The actors were often unable to understand my various grunts, but I felt this created and exciting atmosphere on set, one where no one knew what they were doing. I also tended to throw the camera around when I got bored, but I think this adds to the film's dynamism. It is a shame that I accidentally urinated on the motion control rig, because it created a constant crane loop, sorry about this. Unfortunately the editing room was too small to contain my monkey vitality and we lost one editor cos I chewed on his nose and bashed on his ballsarea. This may have given the film an irregular tempo, but one I'm sure hairy animals will enjoy. On a personal note, I chose to keep the movie long to reproduce how I felt when I was caged in downtown Auckland. There were a few regrettable incidents, like when I threw Jack Black cos I mistook him for a log, but my only real regret is there hadn't been such a debilitating shortage of bananas when we wrote the script. Expand
  100. Nuttybaby
    Jan 21, 2006
    10
    One of my favorites af all time.
Metascore
81

Universal acclaim - based on 39 Critics

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