Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 14, 2005
7.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1405 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,004
Mixed:
156
Negative:
245
Watch Now
Stream On
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
StephenH.Aug 1, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
GoffyA.Jan 11, 2006
How bad can a movie be? In two words: KING KONG.
1 of 3 users found this helpful
10
JoshK.Jan 2, 2006
Simply amazing. One of the best, if not the best film this year.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
SimonC.Jan 3, 2006
>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 >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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LouisM.Jan 6, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DickieJan 8, 2006
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 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful
0
CongoGongoJan 9, 2006
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.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
5
GrahamS.Jan 9, 2006
At least an hour too long. Good performances from all actors, and special effects - but I was completely bored by this stage.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DavidD.Feb 20, 2006
Gorilla animation fine, tho out of scale most of the time,.Way too long and needlessly gory - bad for kids.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
9
MartFeb 6, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JackM.Apr 1, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AnthonyS.Dec 22, 2005
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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
IGiveUpDec 20, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MikeG.Dec 20, 2005
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. 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
BillS.Dec 20, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TomP.Dec 20, 2005
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 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 $6.25 and the rest of the good people's in my theater. I feel that the only reason that more viewers didn't walk out of this movie besides me and my best friend was because it is unfortunately slightly embarrassing and, yes, "elitist", to throw up your hands in disgust in the middle of a movie theater and promtly leave. I used to firmly believe that ALL people were more complex that they first seem. Statistical discrimination, I guess, is justified. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
2
GeorgeR.Dec 20, 2005
It would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except forIt would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except for the stunning scene atop the empire state building (i've never been more afraid of heights - praise to the background artists), there was no motivation to make this movie again. kong still moves like the stop-motion animated creature from the 30's (too sharply or too laboriously), naomi watts looks like a bucktoothed flatchested hillbilly, and kong is kong is kong - no new insights. why were all these non-elements worth three hours of my life? if for whatever reason i ever taught a class in editing at an elementary school i would assign students this movie and ask them to make a one hour and 50 minute version. it would undoubtedly take them all of a half hour to do so. what were the filmmaker$ thinking? Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
1
GlennR.Dec 30, 2005
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 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful
2
ETDec 30, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
PinkRoseJan 11, 2006
The best I saw last 2005, and I bet many envy this movie for its quality, I can read that.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RichardE.Jan 1, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LuisC.Jan 10, 2006
Funny, goood, Amazing!, very enjoyable to be a fantastic film, made me feel all kind of emotions.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DuncanJan 13, 2006
Impressive and gripping, cgi not always on the spot and probably a tad too long.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
GamhaG.Jan 13, 2006
The Incredible picture of the year 2005, I like it a lot.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
CriticexpertJan 13, 2006
After Brokeback Mountain this is the Best !, Magnificent, Colossal.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
C.B.Jan 17, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
perrybJan 10, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RickieJan 1, 2006
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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
VinceM.Jan 1, 2006
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ROSEOFEnsenadaJan 2, 2006
Only one word... Excelent, poor of those who can not enjoy fantasy movies, only want see wars, please, change the world!, 10.
0 of 0 users found this helpful