Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 14, 2005
7.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1415 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,014
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)
1
RockyL.Jan 4, 2006
Paul F. said it best when he said the overload of special effects finally made him numb to the experience. And that is part of the problem. Peter Jackson got so excited with his new toys that he forgot to leave some of the CGI on the cutting Paul F. said it best when he said the overload of special effects finally made him numb to the experience. And that is part of the problem. Peter Jackson got so excited with his new toys that he forgot to leave some of the CGI on the cutting room floor. The editing was awful. As for the acting, Naomi Watts is certainly easy on the eyes but did anyone see any chemistry with Adrian Brody. I for one did not. As for Jack Black he was simply miscast. He is one dimensional and should have never been given the role. As for the script, Peter Jackson took the basic concept but by the time we get to Skull Island with the illogical action scenes all credibility is lost. By the time we get back to NYC who really cares? The supsense is gone as we all know the big ape is going to climb up the Empire State Building to take his eventual swan dive for hopefully the third and final time. As a judge as he dives into the pool I heard the audience gasp 1.0, 1.5, 0.2, 0.5 and thus my 1 rating. The dialogue was awful, the writing terrible, the length of the movie about an hour too long, and the acting and directing abysmal. Other than that this was the BEST movie I have ever seen. Now I feel like one of these ten year olds who say this should win BEST PICTURE of THE YEAR? Give me a break. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
BillJan 4, 2006
This was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was terrible and the dialogue was sappy. If not for the special effects, it could easily be ranked as one of the worst movies of all time. The fact that it is 3.5 This was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was terrible and the dialogue was sappy. If not for the special effects, it could easily be ranked as one of the worst movies of all time. The fact that it is 3.5 hours, when it should have been 90 minutes, puts it in a class all by itself. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JaredJan 5, 2006
I have only one question for Peter Jackson. Your version of King Kong was so childish where was Godzilla and Mothra? That's all that was missing from that ridiculous implausable Skull Island where Jackson lost all credibility. His I have only one question for Peter Jackson. Your version of King Kong was so childish where was Godzilla and Mothra? That's all that was missing from that ridiculous implausable Skull Island where Jackson lost all credibility. His remake of King Kong and Jurassic Park was just a farce. There was the Big APE holding Naomi in one hand while fighting three T-Rex's at the same time. Preposterous. Then when the Captain arrived swinging on a vine machine gunning spiders without any of the bullets penetrating Adrian Brody and Jack Black well that was just too much. But when the Bats attacked King Kong with two humans standing and watching without being attacked with Adrian catching a BAT by the tail and gently hang gliding Naomi and him down the mountain, well, at that point the audience started laughing. As for getting Kong back to NY without destroying the boat let's not even go there. The NY debacle could not come fast enough as it was a joke. Where was that damn BAT when Kong needed him atop the Empire State Buidling? Preposterous movie without any suspense, believablity, acting or directing. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
FedUpJan 5, 2006
When are these bought and paid for professional critics have to answer for their actions? I work hard for my money. I don't want to throw it away on absolutely worthless junk. There is no point rehashing what others have said about this When are these bought and paid for professional critics have to answer for their actions? I work hard for my money. I don't want to throw it away on absolutely worthless junk. There is no point rehashing what others have said about this trash. The acting, casting, directing and script were sorely lacking. I walked out with several others after the Jurassic Park adventure ride. It was as preposterous as the first hour that was crude and just plain boring. There are no words to ever express my outrage that I was played for a sucker by a critic that is paid to report the truth. If any critic wants to take me on one on one point by point be my guest. To give this film a score next to perfect means that the critic had to (A) have been bought and paid for or (B) had a lobotomy and is grossly unable to perform the duties for the paper that hired him or her. Be warned this is a juvenile film of the lowest order. Peter Jackson is a disgrace. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
SimonC.Jan 5, 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
6
PeterS.Jan 5, 2006
Delightful, full of surprises, but way too long and repetitive. Jackson didn't know when to quit. Certainly half-an-hour sooner than he did.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
HowardJan 6, 2006
Special Effects were good not great. As for the rest of the flick it was just too awful to be beleived. I love a good fantasy story as much as the next person but the script, the plot holes, the poor choice in casting and the unediting was Special Effects were good not great. As for the rest of the flick it was just too awful to be beleived. I love a good fantasy story as much as the next person but the script, the plot holes, the poor choice in casting and the unediting was simply terrible. The directing and meaningful dialogue were nonexistant. All in all if this was made for TV channels would be switching stations in about 20 minutes. Terrible effort by an otherwise talented Mr. Jackson. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnJan 8, 2006
This is an unbelievable movie on nearly every conceivable level. Furthermore, I am aghast at how many people have rated this a zero. Have the seen the original?!? Roger Ebert was right in saying that it is "like the flowering of all the This is an unbelievable movie on nearly every conceivable level. Furthermore, I am aghast at how many people have rated this a zero. Have the seen the original?!? Roger Ebert was right in saying that it is "like the flowering of all the possibilities in the original classic film." I want to see it again. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KINKYC.Jan 8, 2006
Well!, there are many comments here!, some hate movies and enter here to give a Zero!, and persons like me who love Fantasy movies, over all if it is done with all the love like Peter J. can put in this amazing project, one of the best for 2005.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ChukC.Jan 8, 2006
I agree with most o real critics no with those who would like to be a real one. Because no one movie deserves a 0 , well no one like this. This is simply an excelent picture, I give it more than 10.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DrakeR.Jan 9, 2006
Quite possibly the biggest bomb next to War Of The Worlds this past year. Peter Jackson should have left about an hour and a half of this film on the cutting room floor. It is an amateur production with laughable action scenes that are Quite possibly the biggest bomb next to War Of The Worlds this past year. Peter Jackson should have left about an hour and a half of this film on the cutting room floor. It is an amateur production with laughable action scenes that are ridiculous. About the only one this trash appeals to is juveniles with attention spans of a gnat. Avoid at all costs. No wonder word of mouth caused it to drop out of Number One at the Box Office after only 2 weeks. Bad acting, directing and no dialogue. Other than that and being way tooooo long it was wonderful. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnR.Feb 12, 2006
The most under appreciated movie of all time. though the movie overall was hailed in with alot of critical approval when it opened, the media like a double edge sword set out to squash this movie like an ant with such criticisms as length, The most under appreciated movie of all time. though the movie overall was hailed in with alot of critical approval when it opened, the media like a double edge sword set out to squash this movie like an ant with such criticisms as length, slow start, Jack Black being miscast etc. Love it or hate it this is one movie everyone needs to see for themselves I have seen it ten times now and honestly can't wait for the dvd release. If I had to sum this movie up with one short sentence then that would be to say that this movie is simply beautiful an action adventure yarn with at its core a pure and gentle heart. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
IsaiahR.Feb 12, 2006
A must see for fans of the original 1933 version or movie fantasy lovers everywhere. Why on earth anyone would rate this movie a zero is beyond me. I have seen this movie 10 times with my Dad and each time I have seen this movie it just gets A must see for fans of the original 1933 version or movie fantasy lovers everywhere. Why on earth anyone would rate this movie a zero is beyond me. I have seen this movie 10 times with my Dad and each time I have seen this movie it just gets beter and better. Awesome special effects the best I have seen to date on film, and if anyone doubts this then just watch the vine scene again most of the shots with Naomi are not the work of a stunt double but a CGI double this goes the same with all the scenes featuring New York, an amazing set peice built on an industrial lot in the Hutt Valley in New Zealand otherwise completely CGI and if you are still not convinced then watch the production diaries for yourself. Man who would have thought that a 25 foot CGI Gorilla named Kong could bring so many people to tears simply awesome in much the same way that a human bonds with a family pet, and as for Naomi Watts 10 out of 10 for her acting opposite Kong to convey such emotion, when for majority of the filming you would have had to imagine your 25 foot co star opposite you what a feat and she pulls it off beautifully. LONG... LONG hmmm you know after 10 times you would think that I would agree but HELL NO!!!!, a good story needs good characterizations to back it up and Mr Jackson does this perfectly though my only complaint would be the scene with Naomi and the old guy outside the closed theatre they once worked together at, a little over the top and a bit longer than it needed to be. Yet even this does not cause me to rethink my rating of this film as this is movie perfection at its best the finest movie I have seen to date... which leaves me to ponder how on earth Chronicles of Narnia could have ever made so much more at the box office than Kong when Kong is definately a far more entertaining movie from start to finish. If there is anything that leaves me with a foul stench in my mouth about this movie it would be how on earth this movie did not get an oscar nomination for best film, best actress, best director or best composer of a movie score, obvously there is no justice in the world. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RichardM.Feb 16, 2006
i was beguiled into absorbed escapism by Jackson's entrancing enchanting fantasy romance i still drift into reflective journeys thru scenes and issues that seem so real and plot issues that urge me to resolve them to me, the paradox of i was beguiled into absorbed escapism by Jackson's entrancing enchanting fantasy romance i still drift into reflective journeys thru scenes and issues that seem so real and plot issues that urge me to resolve them to me, the paradox of extreme fantasy against absorbed escapism cis the mark of an outstanding movie with its deceptively obvious beginnings, this is surely the least appreciated film masterpiece of the decade to date. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JoeFeb 5, 2006
If you like brainless effects movies you will appreciate the technical qualitiies and the wierd out of this world fantasy overgrown insects that make sporadic appearances in this waste of time remake. Otherwise, don't spend your money on dreck!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
ArielG.Feb 9, 2006
Entertaining movie, though not memorable. Two things I had to draw my mind away from when I was watching it: I couldn't buy Adrien Brody as the hero - He's much too frail and androgynous looking to be a hero. And Jack Black was Entertaining movie, though not memorable. Two things I had to draw my mind away from when I was watching it: I couldn't buy Adrien Brody as the hero - He's much too frail and androgynous looking to be a hero. And Jack Black was very miscast in his role. Naomi Watts was good though. It's great if you're wanting to watch an entertaining popcorn movie where you don't have to think too much during and after the movie, and don't mind nonstop action and CGI. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BJN.Mar 28, 2006
I was a nine year old at the movies again. One of the best movies I've seen all year. A great story, and technical wizardry with so much heart. So marvelous to see NYC decades ago. Just magical.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
CaptainS.Mar 29, 2006
Another wonderful film from Peter Jackson, beautifully filmed and full (mostly) of action. This version of King Kong could possibly be the ultimate version (even more "ultimate" than the original, which for me is a big statement). The Another wonderful film from Peter Jackson, beautifully filmed and full (mostly) of action. This version of King Kong could possibly be the ultimate version (even more "ultimate" than the original, which for me is a big statement). The effects by WETA Digital are of course top notch and big accolades should be heaped on Andy Serkis for his work as Kong! Yep, you heard me right...Serkis done the movements for the ape, just like he did for Gollum in LOTR. The only snag I found in this movie was that it was a bit too long and that it drug slightly at the beginning. Other than that, this one is wonderful. Nice going Peter Jackson...a winner. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DaleW.Apr 11, 2006
What a disappointment - 30 minutes just to get on the boat, and an hour before Kong first appears - and special effects that were surpassed by Jurassic Park well over a decade ago. Peter Jackson owes me three hours of my life back.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
EddieC.Apr 3, 2006
This is a decent movie, the begining is extremely dull, no action at all, you kinda just "know" whats gonna happen, but you still have to sit through 20-30 mins to see it happen. Then theirs a "boat scene" or should I say, a "boat-half of This is a decent movie, the begining is extremely dull, no action at all, you kinda just "know" whats gonna happen, but you still have to sit through 20-30 mins to see it happen. Then theirs a "boat scene" or should I say, a "boat-half of the movie" where its just a bit of stupid "plot" and you have to wait what seems, or maybe was, an hour or so. Nothing really gets "good" until King Kong and Skull Island really come in, then still everything, the fight scene, the New York scene, is extremely dragged, the effects are great, everything looks amazing, and their are pretty entertaining scenes, but all in all this movie lacks excitement and loses your attention. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JaredC.Apr 7, 2006
This movie is stellar in every way. If they had an award for biggest "badass of the year" other than me, Kong would definitely win. Awesome Movie!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
jskimMay 8, 2006
This is a truly great movie...so simple, but so effective...it's not complicated - just a tragic story that holds you emotionally and visually from beginning to end. king kong proves that a movie doesn't have to be comlex to keep This is a truly great movie...so simple, but so effective...it's not complicated - just a tragic story that holds you emotionally and visually from beginning to end. king kong proves that a movie doesn't have to be comlex to keep your attention. it is a perfect update of the original...it keeps everything that was good about the original and improves upon everything else. anyone who says the special effects are over-done is a moron...just because there are a lot of special effects doesn't mean they're over-done...if the effects are done right, you can have a lot without it being forced. this is a perfect example of how you use special effects to add to the movie rather than just cramming them in because you can...the emotions displayed by kong really grab you...any movie that makes you feel strongly for a computer generated gorilla is already a huge accomplishment... peter jackson is hands down the best director working right now...he can pull off a big special effects blockbuster without letting the effects overpower the story. thank you peter jackson for being such a skillfull director who hasn't forgotten that the most important part of a movie is its heart. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MarkDJul 12, 2007
I see views and ratings vary wildly for this movie. Some criticisms are just; it was a teeny bit too long and some of the action scenes were poorly done and unnecessary. I get the impression, though, that some people are carping and nit I see views and ratings vary wildly for this movie. Some criticisms are just; it was a teeny bit too long and some of the action scenes were poorly done and unnecessary. I get the impression, though, that some people are carping and nit picking while choosing to ignore (or perhaps just not getting) the emotional and moral core at the heart of this movie. The key is in the very last line - and it's heartbreaking. If you don't get it I'm not going to explain it to you but to sum it up, this movie is both exciting and beautiful. This movie is Hollywood at it's very best. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AustinM.Aug 9, 2007
Kong's one the greatest movies ever, excellent special effects, I love every action scene in this movie. After those three hours, it felt like the movie was short, I know most people saw it's long, but I didn't, I wanted at Kong's one the greatest movies ever, excellent special effects, I love every action scene in this movie. After those three hours, it felt like the movie was short, I know most people saw it's long, but I didn't, I wanted at least another half hour. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MattyDec 10, 2005
One of the year's best: intense action, dramatic excellence, nostalgic bits, exceedingly well done....there is no more need for adjectives.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DavidDec 14, 2005
Went to a Midnight showing and I think I was out before I had to go to work in the morning. I could have showed up an hour late and probably enjoyed the movie more after all the trailers and 45 minutes of nothing going on! Good action after Went to a Midnight showing and I think I was out before I had to go to work in the morning. I could have showed up an hour late and probably enjoyed the movie more after all the trailers and 45 minutes of nothing going on! Good action after we actually see Kong.. but by the end I was wishing she would push him off the building herself... so I could go home! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JayJ.Dec 14, 2005
The best movieyet in this this century.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MatH.Dec 14, 2005
Grand, glorious, and spectacular. Peter Jackson continues to take the American blockbuster to artistic heights it has never seen before.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JeffTDec 14, 2005
I struggle to find faults, yet can find none. Bob p, you are not a paleontologist. I'm a history student, and I'm not freaking out about it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DanDec 15, 2005
I'm very sorry, Matt C....Kong is only four tons, which is well within the carrying capacity of any ship half the size of that ship. And if this constitutes a major plot hole to you, then you must have an a mental age of between three I'm very sorry, Matt C....Kong is only four tons, which is well within the carrying capacity of any ship half the size of that ship. And if this constitutes a major plot hole to you, then you must have an a mental age of between three to seven years. And if you want to see a movie with a suck-ass story, watch the Ring "Oooh a killer movie! Be afraid! Be very afraid!" But I digress from my intellectual mauling of Matt C.'s flawed opinions and assumptions. The movie kicked ass people. See it ASAP. Signing off. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful