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. jamesbondage
    Jan 9, 2006
    8
    A very impressive movie that proves, at times, there can be too much of a good thing. The acting was good, and was impressed by Jack Black but they could have cut a few of the action sequences. They tended to go on a little long. But to the people who hated it, just be glad it was Jackson and not Michael Bay who re-made Kong, or there would have been zero character development and would A very impressive movie that proves, at times, there can be too much of a good thing. The acting was good, and was impressed by Jack Black but they could have cut a few of the action sequences. They tended to go on a little long. But to the people who hated it, just be glad it was Jackson and not Michael Bay who re-made Kong, or there would have been zero character development and would have been a huge steaming pile of monkey crap. Expand
  2. LeeC.
    May 5, 2006
    8
    Extremely Great Movie.
  3. DanB.
    Feb 11, 2007
    8
    Film's too long by far. But if the end gets you, it'll get you good (though I could've written the last line better ).
  4. JayH.
    Jun 14, 2009
    8
    I lives up to all the hype. This is one hugely entertaining film. Naomi Watts is great and the rest of the cast is fine as well. The special effects are some of the best I have ever seen. It hardly seemed three hours plus because the film was immensely engrossing. Peter Jackson did a great job. The sets, sound and editing are all first rate. The period detail of 1933 is fantastic. This is I lives up to all the hype. This is one hugely entertaining film. Naomi Watts is great and the rest of the cast is fine as well. The special effects are some of the best I have ever seen. It hardly seemed three hours plus because the film was immensely engrossing. Peter Jackson did a great job. The sets, sound and editing are all first rate. The period detail of 1933 is fantastic. This is brilliant film making and has everything a great movie should have. Expand
  5. LanceM.
    Dec 16, 2005
    8
    Great remake of a classic movie. Peter Jackson has once again shown that he has an eye for the story as well as action. Would definitely see it again.
  6. Zach
    Dec 16, 2005
    8
    I saw this movie last night and was surprised how good it was. I was expecting it would be long and boring like those LOTR movies Jackson was behind, but this was good. It's worth it to see King Kong fighting the T'Rexes alone. Tons of action, really fun to see.
  7. Lucas
    Dec 19, 2005
    8
    Once again, here is a case of "what you bring to the movies is what you'll get out of them". If you are a racist, you'll see racist imagery in "King Kong" and chances are you find racism EVERYWHERE because you are a paranoid psycho. If you suffer from impatience (or ADD), then the movie is too long, etc. As for the racism comment, I'd much rather enjoy a flight-o-fancy like Once again, here is a case of "what you bring to the movies is what you'll get out of them". If you are a racist, you'll see racist imagery in "King Kong" and chances are you find racism EVERYWHERE because you are a paranoid psycho. If you suffer from impatience (or ADD), then the movie is too long, etc. As for the racism comment, I'd much rather enjoy a flight-o-fancy like "Kong" than another no-talent gang-banger-gone-rapper-gone-pseudoactor, any day! It's hilarious that certain people can find racism in a movie like "King Kong" yet, say absolutely nothing about the idiotic stereotypes found in hip-hop gang banger movies and video games...that's just my fifty-cents worth! Expand
  8. [Anonymous]
    Dec 23, 2005
    8
    Wow! I was taken away, especially by the love between both the woman and the ape and the woman and the man. I was in tears, crying several times in this movie and I never cry (except for The Titanic). It was a bit long in some areas and not long enough in others...but overall amazing special effects, acting, and story line. Beautiful job! Naomi Watts and whoever played the ape deserve Wow! I was taken away, especially by the love between both the woman and the ape and the woman and the man. I was in tears, crying several times in this movie and I never cry (except for The Titanic). It was a bit long in some areas and not long enough in others...but overall amazing special effects, acting, and story line. Beautiful job! Naomi Watts and whoever played the ape deserve some sort of high recognition--I forgot I was in a movie....it seemed so real to me. It pulled out so many emotions I can't even express! Expand
  9. BlakeT.
    Dec 24, 2005
    8
    Great film that achieves its goal with ease. If you do to this movie thinking "Lord of the Rings" or anything of such an epic scale, you will be dissappointed. This movie was meant to be a fun thrill ride that toys with your emotions. Enjoy it for what it is and don't treat it like "Citizen Cane" as so many of the other reviewers here have done. My only real complaint with the film Great film that achieves its goal with ease. If you do to this movie thinking "Lord of the Rings" or anything of such an epic scale, you will be dissappointed. This movie was meant to be a fun thrill ride that toys with your emotions. Enjoy it for what it is and don't treat it like "Citizen Cane" as so many of the other reviewers here have done. My only real complaint with the film was the pacing and length. It was a bit long and the pacing seemed off a bit. Great casting job, though. Expand
  10. Danielle
    Dec 29, 2005
    8
    more emotional resonsance than the original. not great, but really good. just too long.
  11. MarcD.
    Dec 8, 2005
    8
    Wow. I just saw the film at Universal's holiday party, and I'm still a little stunned by it a couple hours later. It's a spectacular film. The first 20-30 minutes drag a little in establishing the story, but once you hit Skull Island, the drama grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go until the final frames. Kong is amazing. Not for a second did I pause to think Wow. I just saw the film at Universal's holiday party, and I'm still a little stunned by it a couple hours later. It's a spectacular film. The first 20-30 minutes drag a little in establishing the story, but once you hit Skull Island, the drama grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go until the final frames. Kong is amazing. Not for a second did I pause to think about him as a CGI creation. And if you're at all a fan of Naomi Watts....wow....just see it. The action is intense, it's thick with genuine emotion, and I actually had a tough time not tossing my cookies during the final sequence. Vertigo anyone?? I can't give it a 10 because it's not an original story, but I give Peter Jackson the ultimate respect for doing amazing things with this classic story. It's a must see. Expand
  12. BigG.
    Dec 13, 2005
    8
    To Bob p. When you watch a scifi/fantasy or read one of them book, you aren't suppose to diagnose it for thing that isn't real. It's call suspension of disbelief. It's like Armageddon, if it wasn't for that part where they talk to each other in space, it would have been a movie worth a 8 to 9 rating.
  13. SeanD.
    Dec 15, 2005
    8
    So...everyone can plainly see my rating for the film and I will explain that shortly. However, I would like to take this time and refute some of the dismissals people place on the film. First, the so-called "racist" content: this complaint is laughable, because of its PC politics igoring the fact that no one in the film refers to the native peoples as "savage" or even derogatorily So...everyone can plainly see my rating for the film and I will explain that shortly. However, I would like to take this time and refute some of the dismissals people place on the film. First, the so-called "racist" content: this complaint is laughable, because of its PC politics igoring the fact that no one in the film refers to the native peoples as "savage" or even derogatorily comments on the society. These are not cannibals but a race of people forced to live in rocky terrain and survive on fish (Jackson carefully places a shot of dried fish within a montage of the village), so yelling "movie foul" on Jackson's portrayal of primitive peoples holds no water. Secondly, users (and even some critics) decry the length of the film: my focus was on the pacing. Analyzing the film, we see an hour allowed for development of characters. Compare to, say a program people with short attention spans enjoy, Leguna Beach. THOSE 2-D characters have to have some kind of personality to warrant an entire season; however, the characters in "King Kong" need only be focused on for three hours. Who then can say that one hour to personalize and humanize Jack, Carl, Ann, Hays, the Captain, and Carl's crew is too much? It is not a huge demand considering the characters will be placed under extreme stresses for the remaining time. I give credit to Jackson for trying to go beyond introducing "fodder characters" and create personalities which will give some empathetic weight to the proceedings. Complaints then are from people not accustomed to quality characters; I mean, it's not excessive to have an hour if "Hamlet" runs over three hours for the sake of one character. The CGI was crafted with emotion (which I cannot say for Lucas' stark universe), but then Jackson was careful to include something real with the fabricated in each shot. Watts was rarely replaced with an animated standin (compared to Spiderman or Star Wars, both look like action figure battles in parts). My only criticism is that the script seemed to lose strength near the end, and in the jungle. Scenes relied too heavily on "moment" shots. It tells me that the filmmaker doesn't trust the view to "get" the point that fast. Over indulging on moments is what makes this film excessive to some viewers. All in all, the film entertained and carried a subtle theme of displacement and human nature. What I liked especially was the Depression montage of the beginning, the poverty of the people linking to the primitive culture and resulting finally in the synthesis of the two worlds, King Kong, having no other option but to die. That may be a bit much, I know, but I think it's worth noting that interpretations for the mythos range the spectrum, and Jackson is all the more responsible by maintaining the original ambiguity. Expand
  14. MP
    Dec 17, 2005
    8
    A very solid 8. Anyone giving it less then about a 4 is an idiot. This movie is as bad as Gigli? I don't think so. I think the people giving the a 10 are a bit overenthusiastic, but at least they are closer to reality. Yes, some scenes were less then realistic. But the movie is fantasy, so that's fine with me. You have no problem with the 25 foot gorilla or the t. rex, but Naomi A very solid 8. Anyone giving it less then about a 4 is an idiot. This movie is as bad as Gigli? I don't think so. I think the people giving the a 10 are a bit overenthusiastic, but at least they are closer to reality. Yes, some scenes were less then realistic. But the movie is fantasy, so that's fine with me. You have no problem with the 25 foot gorilla or the t. rex, but Naomi Watts underdressed in the winter is completely unbelievable? I agree that the film could have used some editing. A few scenes could have been shortened, and a few left out completely. But those are quibbles. Even with it's problems, it was still a great movie. Maybe not a masterpiece, but certainly better then 95% of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days. Expand
  15. J.Sallister
    Dec 18, 2005
    8
    Takes an already great movie and makes it better. Many people fail to see this is a remake of a 1930s film, and is not posed to be realistic. Someone rated this movie poorly because dinosaurs have not existed for over 300 million years and the next person seems to think that this movie is a knockoff of Jurassic Park. People know before they see the film tthat it is a 3 hour movie and it Takes an already great movie and makes it better. Many people fail to see this is a remake of a 1930s film, and is not posed to be realistic. Someone rated this movie poorly because dinosaurs have not existed for over 300 million years and the next person seems to think that this movie is a knockoff of Jurassic Park. People know before they see the film tthat it is a 3 hour movie and it includes a non-existant gorilla. Others like, Daniel T claim that this mega-budget remake of a classic that is (in itself an indication of the banal recycling endemic of current cinema), although Peter Jackson presented countless renditions of the classic to Universal before he was green-lighted, and others may not know that this is an homage and not an original picture, and probably is not meant to be. This movie delivers everything you'd wanna see in a film, some parts may be dragged out, but does not diminish the overall quality of the flick. Too many complain that the movie is unrealistic in every way, everyone knows that before they see the movie, stop crying. The racists (natives) are cannibals (people who eat people), and T-Rex's do not live on the coast, and the wall obviously could not contain Kong. Most people should see the original before they post a review. Expand
  16. FernandoK.
    Dec 23, 2005
    8
    Peter Jackson tried to play with our feelings about Kong¡¡ That scene "Kong Bambi in the ice" is ridiculous¡ He put that scene just a few seconds before the tragedy just to make the tears come out¡ In many cases it worked, but it notices the intention¡ But its a great movie with amazing effects¡¡ after all Peter Jackson dissapoint me¡ He is Peter Jackson tried to play with our feelings about Kong¡¡ That scene "Kong Bambi in the ice" is ridiculous¡ He put that scene just a few seconds before the tragedy just to make the tears come out¡ In many cases it worked, but it notices the intention¡ But its a great movie with amazing effects¡¡ after all Peter Jackson dissapoint me¡ He is only that.. effects¡¡ Expand
  17. Feb 15, 2011
    8
    While the ending wasn't really satisfying, overall, it was a fun ride. And I actually didn't mind the length of the movie, something I criticised Peter Kackson's LOTR trilogy for.
  18. Dec 10, 2011
    8
    Quite good! The effects were tremendous. Even so is the fight scene between Kong & Dinosaurs!!! Very compelling!!! But after that, it's borin'... Too much effort in tellin' the Kong-going-NY story instead of the interaction between the duo and the 'triangle'...
  19. Jan 9, 2012
    8
    Great movie, nice soundtrack and environment, but way to long. The movie is really good, but so long that it gets quite boring after some time...and it gets exciting again at the ending.
  20. Dec 29, 2013
    8
    Yes, "King Kong" is slightly overlong (theatrical: 187 minutes, extended: 201 minutes), but you cannot deny that it is an emotional and powerful epic. Director Peter Jackson, who also helmed the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, once again brings us a memorable, visually stunning adventure.
  21. Dec 19, 2012
    8
    "King Kong" is a wonderfully imagined retelling of a cinema icon. Perhaps it's an overlong adventure, but things start ratcheting up once Kong is finally introduced. Excellent filmmaking.
  22. Nov 28, 2012
    8
    It may have dragged a bit in some parts but Peter Jackson's visually resplendent remake of "King Kong" still resonated well with me in the end.
  23. Mar 24, 2013
    8
    Very good special effects although the plot line could have used a bit more.
  24. May 19, 2013
    8
    His technique is flawless part, bringing the screen one of the most beautiful scriptures that special effects can bring, but its history is truncated because there a lot of fantasy, and his cast is divided, on one side, Jack Black and John goodmam sound naturally while A.Brodie and Naomi W. sound very theatrical because of the nature of their characters, but the film is still good, andHis technique is flawless part, bringing the screen one of the most beautiful scriptures that special effects can bring, but its history is truncated because there a lot of fantasy, and his cast is divided, on one side, Jack Black and John goodmam sound naturally while A.Brodie and Naomi W. sound very theatrical because of the nature of their characters, but the film is still good, and shows that Peter Jacsom have a lot of creativity, even if it is not always for the good of the film. Expand
  25. Sep 5, 2014
    8
    King Kong 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.

    And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the
    King Kong 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.

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

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

    Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong isn't perfect. The special effects are overall top notch but when people run with dinosaurs the limit of the blue screen show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone). The other problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner.
    Expand
  26. Dec 29, 2014
    8
    A great King Kong remake with great acting and an especially terrific performance from Andy Serkis who's motion capture effects is the best CGI in the film as the dinosaurs looked fake. Overall, King Kong is a great remake and remains in my top 10 monster flicks of all time. 8/10 (Great)
  27. Mar 19, 2015
    8
    This is one of my first reviews for a movie because this is one of the first DVDs I bought as a kid. If you're looking to watch this movie, please know that the camera/directing is very good and that you could be out of your chair at some scenes. It is a breathtaking experience served with a unique but memorable plot. As far as music (I always check out the music), it is solid, and AndyThis is one of my first reviews for a movie because this is one of the first DVDs I bought as a kid. If you're looking to watch this movie, please know that the camera/directing is very good and that you could be out of your chair at some scenes. It is a breathtaking experience served with a unique but memorable plot. As far as music (I always check out the music), it is solid, and Andy Serkis has become such a pleasure to watch. Also, as much as it is exciting to watch, pay attention as most of the scenes are symbolic and I appreciate that as a film-lover.

    The picture is on point but I will say this movie did get lengthy and it was hard to focus a few times.
    Expand
  28. Jul 21, 2015
    8
    Very good movie . a remake is not as famous as the 33 ' but even if errors scene brontosaurus stampede and participation of Jack Black in this action adventure movie and drama. This project has taken its format very well.
  29. Jan 20, 2016
    8
    A good remake of the original. What's so bad about it? Jack Black's in it. Other than that, it's a gorilla taking down a plane holding a woman reminding you how 1933 went by so fast.
  30. Jul 19, 2016
    8
    King Kong is known as one of the bests classics of the whole cinema history. Now, it's reboot tries to revive the main idea of the film with new stars and a new story-telling. So it's new style surely makes the original King Kong to be embarrassed of the new special effects and the new amazing interpretations, despite the dull beginning.
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. AditiT.
    Aug 30, 2006
    7
    it is a nice movie but still some suspence should also be there.
  34. 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
  35. SimonC.
    Jan 5, 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
  36. BudS.
    Dec 17, 2005
    7
    The original King Kong is the motion picture equivalent of the cotton gin: a groundbreaking, technical marvel in its time that's now an obsolete relic. With that in mind, I wasn't excited about a remake, but this exceeded my expectations. Frank O. is right, the first act is slow, "Jurassic Park" is a unimaginative knock-off of Kong...but I think this new Kong is really uneven. The original King Kong is the motion picture equivalent of the cotton gin: a groundbreaking, technical marvel in its time that's now an obsolete relic. With that in mind, I wasn't excited about a remake, but this exceeded my expectations. Frank O. is right, the first act is slow, "Jurassic Park" is a unimaginative knock-off of Kong...but I think this new Kong is really uneven. The second act just pounds you senseless with overkill (let's have one...no two...no three...no FOUR dinosaurs!...and before that a STAMPEDE!...) The third act, when Kong gets loose, that's the best part. The action is more impressive, there's some very graceful filmmaking (particularly the quiet moments and the way they're interrupted), and the look of 1930's New York during December is GORGEOUS. (Naomi Watts has also never looked better.) Jackson also does a good job of recreating the memorable climax - justifiably the most famous part of the original Kong. Jackson even achieves more emotion and some deep pathos in this remake. The movie's still hokey in a lot of spots and I'm no fan of cheese. In fact, the movie's final line is taken straight from the original, and half the theater groaned when they heard it. Not a great picture, but the third act saved it for me. Expand
  37. BennyB.
    Dec 21, 2005
    7
    A great movie that is perhaps a bit too drawn out. All the Skull Island sections are strong, the build-up sections in NY are good, but the NY sections with Kong at the end are a bit weak at times and felt drawn out. 3/4 of an hour could have been shaved off this.
  38. RahulP.
    Dec 20, 2005
    7
    This is no Titanic or even compares to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Peter Jackson's last directorial effort. However, as a stand alone, ambitious project that it was, it nearly delivers. Some plot holes are exposed, but then again, with a Gorilla as the main character, that's a given. The sets, production design and the cinematography are amazing. Kong on top of the Empire This is no Titanic or even compares to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Peter Jackson's last directorial effort. However, as a stand alone, ambitious project that it was, it nearly delivers. Some plot holes are exposed, but then again, with a Gorilla as the main character, that's a given. The sets, production design and the cinematography are amazing. Kong on top of the Empire State Building is an amazing scene...King Kong itself is realized in amazing detail, however, the dinosaurs and the bugs and creatures of Skull Island I didn't see the reason for. The Captain of the ship, the stowaway kid and the first mate all had character development in the first hour, but you didn't really care and then I think PJ forgot about them as well :-) Naomi Watts was good, Jack Black was amazing as a mad director willing to stake everything on the line and Adrien Brody might as well have sleep-walked through the movie. Some silly sequences, notably the fight with the dinosaurs and the ice-skating scene! In the end, I compare this to Titanic and you realize that the reason Titanic was such a monster hit was because you cared for the characters and CGI/special effects were part of the movie, not the stars. King Kong was spectacular in the CGI/special effects, but lacked credibility in story realization and the character development. I didn't really care about King Kong in the end as he plunges to his death as I cared for what happened to Jack and Rose on the Titanic... Expand
  39. Zoe
    Dec 25, 2005
    7
    The first hour was great; perfect for getting us hooked into the time period, the characters and their motivations. Unlike "War of the Worlds," which gave us no connection to the characters, the fact that Jackson gives us this time is laudable, although I could have done without the "Heart of Darkness" duo. Doesn't Jackson know that in an action flick like this you only have time to The first hour was great; perfect for getting us hooked into the time period, the characters and their motivations. Unlike "War of the Worlds," which gave us no connection to the characters, the fact that Jackson gives us this time is laudable, although I could have done without the "Heart of Darkness" duo. Doesn't Jackson know that in an action flick like this you only have time to care about a couple of characters? Trying to force in more "heart" always feels...er...forced. Ironically, as the action speeds up in the second third, my interest fell. Some fabulous action scenes are overshadowed by some gratuitous action scenes. I wish there had been more time spent here developing the chemistry between Anne and Kong rather than throwing in every cool effect they could think of. The final third was brilliant. Loved it. In the end, this movie is flawed simply because as an audience we're not naive enough to appreciate the whole vision. But, don't wait for home video. This one is definitely worth seeing on the big screen. Expand
  40. Filmbufs
    Jan 11, 2006
    7
    Sometimes, even in epic adventures, it is the subtle moments that stand out. Although the efx are outstanding (for the most part) it is the relationship between Kong and Anne Darrow that remain memorable. When dialogue occurs, however, we see Kevin Jackson's unmistakable weakness. He can direct special efx sequences but appears to have difficulty with actors. Thankfully, there are Sometimes, even in epic adventures, it is the subtle moments that stand out. Although the efx are outstanding (for the most part) it is the relationship between Kong and Anne Darrow that remain memorable. When dialogue occurs, however, we see Kevin Jackson's unmistakable weakness. He can direct special efx sequences but appears to have difficulty with actors. Thankfully, there are many, many moments that rely on unspoken emotions and all of them between Kong and Darrow. The movie is bearable during the first hour as they attempt to give motivation for going on a boat trip to an uncharted isle. This three hour tour does get rough as plot points and characters are essentially sketched in but we all know what's in store. Thankfully, there is a noticeable shift as the second hour begins. The creepy fog settling on the boat cleanes our palate as we approach Skull Island. We're not in Kansas anymore, nor are we in the technicolor, dilluted, depression-era NY where overacting reins king. The adventure finally begins and never eases up. King Kong is not without flaws, even in the special efx department, but overall everything is forgiven as we gladly latch on to a ride for the remaining two-thirds of the movie. Some plot points are laughable, more than a few characters are on-screen without proper motivation (a huge, consistent problem with Jackson's movies) and some of the efx look unbelievable or unfinished. But it's the quiet moments as we see the expressions revealed in Kong's eyes that drive the story and make us believe. Andy Serkis once again provides more emotion and depth in digital form than several of the live actors. It's a sad statement really, but quite the accomplishment for Mr. Serkis. King Kong lives up to the hype and you should definitely see this on the big screen. At least the last two-thirds. Expand
  41. MichaelO.
    Jan 10, 2006
    7
    Really, most of this movie was quite good. The story isn't much, but it's an action flick. The special effects were pretty good, although some of them seemed silly. The huge downside to this movie is that it's about 60 minutes too long. Some scenes just drag on and on.
  42. PatrickB.
    Jan 15, 2006
    7
    Outstanding movie IF they would have stopped at Skull Island. If they would have just gotten away and killed Kong in the process it would have been a perfect ending. Unfortunately, in staying true to the original, he New York ending seems tacked on and contrived.
  43. TracyB.
    Dec 16, 2005
    7
    Visually stunning, moving in arts but the story was streched to long. Should have been cut by 1 hour, at least 30 minutes. I really wanted to love it but the length minimized the impact.
  44. SteveP.
    Dec 17, 2005
    7
    Some people say Kong is a flawless masterpiece. Some say it is a boring, grueling crapfest. The truth: Neither; Kong falls somewhere in between. The CGI is nothing to complain about, because it's some of the best ever used. My main beef with the movie is that most of it plays out like a videogame. Naomi Watts swings back and forth and nearly gets eaten. Big bugs make the audience Some people say Kong is a flawless masterpiece. Some say it is a boring, grueling crapfest. The truth: Neither; Kong falls somewhere in between. The CGI is nothing to complain about, because it's some of the best ever used. My main beef with the movie is that most of it plays out like a videogame. Naomi Watts swings back and forth and nearly gets eaten. Big bugs make the audience scream out, "Eww!!!" I would equate King Kong with one of those 3D movies at Disney World. Then the very next moment it is playing sad music and you are staring at the soulful eyes of a dying Kong. Also, I agree. 3 Hours is too long of a movie. I don't blame Jackson, because trying to entertain someone for 3 hours is an ambitious task. Bottome Line: Some of it is a marvel to look at, and some is really cool, but I never have much fun with Jackson's movies. Expand
  45. LanceD.
    Dec 19, 2005
    7
    Peter Jackson comes up with some great creatures on the island but it just takes them too long to get there (1hour 10 mins). Show up late and you'll enjoy this movie immensely.
  46. MikeB.
    Dec 19, 2005
    7
    I would have loved to have given this movie a 10, but I couldn't. One of the biggest reason frankly was Jack Black. Why was he given such an important role? He is not a dramatic actor-it showed and it hurt the film terribly. Adrien Brody seemed very unattached to this movie. Naomi Watts did do a good job though. This has always been a great story in my opinion. I think Jackson I would have loved to have given this movie a 10, but I couldn't. One of the biggest reason frankly was Jack Black. Why was he given such an important role? He is not a dramatic actor-it showed and it hurt the film terribly. Adrien Brody seemed very unattached to this movie. Naomi Watts did do a good job though. This has always been a great story in my opinion. I think Jackson captured it as a tragedy instead of a monster movie and I think this is the essence of the film. I do think it is important that you like the premise of the movie to begin with. I think Jackson hit the target concerning Kong also. Kong was primarliy innocent and this played against man's greed, ego and ignorance is what makes this movie so moving. They did make Kong appear incredibly life like and gave him very real emotions and qualities. The play on the ice skating ring was a bit silly and pointless though. Some of the special effects and filming seemed to move too quickly and this made it hard to see all that was going on. Expand
  47. KingityKongity
    Dec 21, 2005
    7
    Pros: fun, exciting, suspensful, great ending cons: somewhat overlong, gets little boring near the end overview: for those who have not seen the original, then the ending, the films only flaw, may seem exciting. Those who know what will happen, get ready for monotony.
  48. GogsH.
    Dec 23, 2005
    7
    Brilliant remake spoiled by 4 very silly scenes. 1. The unsinkable ship 2. WWF meets King Kong - why 3 T-Rex 3. Stupid Stampeed of dinosaurs 4. Bugs life - what a shot Take these out you get a shorter and far more true remake.
  49. BrandonS.
    Dec 26, 2005
    7
    This is the very definition of a movie deserving of a "7". It teeters on a bizzarre precipice between really good and really bad, and it's up to the individual audiance member to decide which way to push it. I think all could agree that it is far far far too long, however. The beginning is fantastically done, the end is competently handled, and the middle is just junk. The movie, in This is the very definition of a movie deserving of a "7". It teeters on a bizzarre precipice between really good and really bad, and it's up to the individual audiance member to decide which way to push it. I think all could agree that it is far far far too long, however. The beginning is fantastically done, the end is competently handled, and the middle is just junk. The movie, in it's middle, trades in "wonder" for "action" and suffers horribly for it. Definately worth going to see, but only if you're in a VERY comfortable and easy going mood. Otherwise you might find yourself throwing a kong like tantrum come hour three... Expand
  50. AMovieCritic
    Dec 29, 2005
    7
    This movie was very good. Very emotional, PERFECT musical score, amazing special effects, some great acting, (I don't see why Jack Black is being criticized for his performance in this. He fit the part perfectly) awesome action scenes, and King Kong himself was perfectly realized. The action was at times amazing. A very fun movie that would be considered a classic..... This movie was very good. Very emotional, PERFECT musical score, amazing special effects, some great acting, (I don't see why Jack Black is being criticized for his performance in this. He fit the part perfectly) awesome action scenes, and King Kong himself was perfectly realized. The action was at times amazing. A very fun movie that would be considered a classic..... EXCEPT....it's way too long. Peter Jackson NEEDS someone to go through his scripts and edit. That's what he needs. This movie was made to be a 3-hour movie, and this isn't the type of story that warrants a 3-hour movie. It's that simple. And as excited as I was during this, I couldn't help wondering when it would end...it just seems to go on forever. Particularly early on in the movie. It gets off to a great start, but way too much time is spent on a boat. I literally almost fell asleep after about an hour of this movie. Scenes that I would have cut would include the island natives early on. That entire scene was completely pointless, and the natives never made an appearance again, and were never discussed again. Could have been cut, and nobody would have noticed. Many scenes on the boat also could have been cut. If this movie was about 45 minutes shorter, it really would have been excellent. As it stands, though, it's a good movie. It would have been great, but it's way too long, and I would NEVER see it again for this reason. It just wears you out by the end more than anything else. Hopefully this film's lower-than-expected box office numbers will show Peter Jackson that NOT every movie he makes should be 3 hours long. It worked for the LoTR movies, (although I personally think these could have also used some editing,) but with a story like this, there was no reason for it to be 3 hours long. Still a very good movie, but prepare to leave the theater exhausted. Expand
  51. ChrisT.
    Dec 14, 2005
    7
    There's a really great two-hour movie in there somewhere.
  52. Laura
    Dec 15, 2005
    7
    Really fabulous looking picture. I thought they did a great job making King Kong expressive. However, the pacing was too slow - the movie didn't start really moving until the middle third and the last act was flabby as well. I'd see it again, but only at home where I could fast forward through the boring bits.
  53. Tom
    Dec 18, 2005
    7
    In all honesty, this gets a 7.5, rounding down rather than up. It would truely deserve perhaps an 8 or 9 if it weren't for the overdrawn, onanistic action movie this tender tale becomes in the second act. Otherwise, i think it's unfortunate that many are dismissing this film without deeply considering the heartbreaking tale that lies at the core, which I felt held true despite In all honesty, this gets a 7.5, rounding down rather than up. It would truely deserve perhaps an 8 or 9 if it weren't for the overdrawn, onanistic action movie this tender tale becomes in the second act. Otherwise, i think it's unfortunate that many are dismissing this film without deeply considering the heartbreaking tale that lies at the core, which I felt held true despite the dinosaurs, explosions and enormous insects. The first act ignited the passion for adventure, and the final act saw the brutal extinguishing of understanding and non-physical love, but unfortunately the middle part distorted and erased possible interpretation of the subtlties of the original story. Expand
  54. Mick
    Dec 19, 2005
    7
    Visually Stunning, but too long and drawn out in places.
  55. Josh
    Dec 21, 2005
    7
    This was far from a classic movie, but in terms of sheer energy and adventure it is quite successful. The haters seem to take it waaaaay too seriously. It's a blockheaded popcorn flick and if you put it up against others of the same ilk, it comes out way ahead. I am not a Peter Jackson lover and was never particularly blown away by any of the LOTR movies. His special effects ranged This was far from a classic movie, but in terms of sheer energy and adventure it is quite successful. The haters seem to take it waaaaay too seriously. It's a blockheaded popcorn flick and if you put it up against others of the same ilk, it comes out way ahead. I am not a Peter Jackson lover and was never particularly blown away by any of the LOTR movies. His special effects ranged from bad to brilliant and the characters were never really that compelling, and all of this is no different in King Kong. It was long and, at times, relentless in terms of bombastic action, but it 's an epic 30's movie (narrative and morals) filmed with modern technology and it all fits. Don't take it so seriously. Watch it for what it is. Try not to think about it too much and save all that effort for a movie that actually needs it. King Kong is pure escapist entertainment with plenty of flaws, but so what? Couldn't you spend your time better ripping Aeon Flux or any number of truly bad Hollywood "Blockbuster" material? Expand
  56. ChadS.
    Dec 23, 2005
    7
    When we get to Skull Island, it's "Spot the DVD Bonus Footage"-time. The dinosaur stampede can stay, but all those cave creatures was too much of a good thing; that is, if you consider CGI a good thing. It throws the whole film out of whack, and even the most ardent action junkie will be able to feel the excess. The big gorilla is upstaged by a "Jurassic Park" hijack. In the human When we get to Skull Island, it's "Spot the DVD Bonus Footage"-time. The dinosaur stampede can stay, but all those cave creatures was too much of a good thing; that is, if you consider CGI a good thing. It throws the whole film out of whack, and even the most ardent action junkie will be able to feel the excess. The big gorilla is upstaged by a "Jurassic Park" hijack. In the human division, Naomi Watts is typically Watts-like, but Adrien Brody looks bored, and Jack Black, in trying to distance himself from his comic persona, seems a little too muted. "King Kong" is mildly disappointing, saved only by art design and a brilliant way of showing how Hollywood depicts indigenous cultures. Expand
  57. OrenK.
    Dec 27, 2005
    7
    Incredible CGI, and amazing attention to detail (as in LOTR). However, it was very very long. Overall, worth seeing and fairly enjoyable.
  58. Oct 30, 2010
    7
    the minute length was way too longer when its resonant, but that didn't stop Peter Jackson for making this perfect hit.
  59. Mar 24, 2011
    7
    First of all, a three-hour marathon is precisely what I expect from Peter Jackson. I really do! He makes movies like very few in the world - he's precise, thorough, immaculate, and needs a canvass that he can expand as much as he needs. King Kong is not at all boring or lengthy, it is just right for the way Jackson builds his characters up, lets the audience into Kong, into the overallFirst of all, a three-hour marathon is precisely what I expect from Peter Jackson. I really do! He makes movies like very few in the world - he's precise, thorough, immaculate, and needs a canvass that he can expand as much as he needs. King Kong is not at all boring or lengthy, it is just right for the way Jackson builds his characters up, lets the audience into Kong, into the overall evolution of the movie's plot. It is obvious that Jackson's major emphasis is on Kong and Ann (Naomi Watts), and he takes his time with them. Andy Serkis, who also played Gollum in the Lord of the Ring trilogy, is a chameleon and master of the fantasy-creatures theme. Serkis has given Kong a life of its own, and his interplay with Watts' character is the highlight of the movie. Now, what were Jack Black and Adrien Brody doing is a question that really got to me. I seriously wonder if Carl Denham had been played by, say, Tom Wilkinson, Denham might have been 'logical' for me. Black's too young to play Denham's treacherous, unethical, and callous personality, Wilkinson might have been a logical fit with his age and acting credentials, along with some serious bodyweight loss and a younger-looking make-up! But I'm running into Skull Island fantasy here! I enjoyed the action sequences, Kong's physical specimen is a sight to behold, though that ultimate fight between Kong and the before-mutation dinosaurs, when Kong rescues Ann, was probably too long and lengthy for me. As if Kong wasn't done with three monster dinos, he still has to fight his way through the labyrinth of those eerie vines and climb down to land to fight the 'mother' dino of them all! The final city scenes were captivating, the sound and urgency of the situation was just perfect. Perhaps, just perhaps, Jackson felt that if the audience were led to the 'beauty killed the beast, not the guns' part, the death of Kong would seem cathartic and logical enough. I enjoyed the background score by James Newton Howard who compliments Kong's physical rage with the softest piano and orchestral notes, and yet, elevates it a notch above when the action gets going. All in all, Jackson doesn't disappoint, and neither does Serkis or Watts. Black was the disappointment for me. He was much, much better and natural in his magnum opus, School of Rock. In King Kong, he's just a naturally-good comedy actor trying to portray serious and cunning. He's failed miserably. Which is surprising, because his Ned Schneebly/Dewey Finn was an amazing and finely-balanced performance. Expand
  60. Sep 27, 2011
    7
    "King Kong" is a great summer blockbuster movie that will throw you out of your mind. However, that's as far as the movie can get to you.
  61. Apr 21, 2012
    7
    With KING KONG, Peter Jackson has added yet another epic film to his resume'. Ground-breaking special effects, along with an excellent plot and cast, makes the film thoroughly engrossing, (and at times, terrifying). The only drawback is the length. (And many agree on this point). The film could have intensified exponentially if only it was a good two and a half hours instead of three and change.
  62. Sep 3, 2014
    7
    Peter Jackson's re-imagination of King Kong is a swell time to spend three hours. The new vision is stunning and heartfelt--he is influenced by the original work, but brings a new focus to the story.
  63. Mar 30, 2013
    7
    A lavish long-winded beautiful bore. Compacted with unnecessarily elongated scenes that take away from the central theme. A movie at first you enjoy but are then forced to endure.
  64. Apr 15, 2012
    7
    Best King Kong by a long shot. Worth watching with a friend and much better than the other ones. King Kong 7.4
  65. Jan 26, 2014
    7
    Peter Jackson displays his talents with visuals, and a coherent storyline. While I still dislike and fail to respect remakes, 'King Kong' is one of those out a million that work, thanks to Jack Black and Adrien Brody. And Serkis is the only person who can make motion capture work well. While the film still has his corny moments, especially at the ends, you can slowly forget the runningPeter Jackson displays his talents with visuals, and a coherent storyline. While I still dislike and fail to respect remakes, 'King Kong' is one of those out a million that work, thanks to Jack Black and Adrien Brody. And Serkis is the only person who can make motion capture work well. While the film still has his corny moments, especially at the ends, you can slowly forget the running time and be somewhat enthralled in the icon of King Kong Expand
  66. Jan 17, 2014
    7
    King Kong is petty good in terms of story and acting, but its 187 minute runtime makes it feel like you're watching it for a month. While movies like Lawrence of Arabia and Gone With The Wind may be justifiably long, King Kong isn't.
  67. Jul 2, 2014
    7
    How do you make an alternative review of your favorite movie of all time by doing the remake of your favorite movie of all time? The answer is: you don't, but it must be done.

    Surprisingly, this film satisfies fans of the original 1933 classic by giving us a fine homage with familiar aspects while still giving us a fresh start. It may not attract new fans but it pleases any who watches
    How do you make an alternative review of your favorite movie of all time by doing the remake of your favorite movie of all time? The answer is: you don't, but it must be done.

    Surprisingly, this film satisfies fans of the original 1933 classic by giving us a fine homage with familiar aspects while still giving us a fresh start. It may not attract new fans but it pleases any who watches it.

    The films strongest suits are its leading lady, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) who delivers a strong performance that rivals that of the original Fay Wray by giving us a more likable and brave character rather than just a mere damsel-in-distress. The effects are also very well done, Weta Digital gives us a living and believable Skull Island and Andy Serkis' performance as Kong is top-notch.

    The downsides are in the film's supporting cast, they are good characters but Adrien Brody is just boring, really boring, and Jack Black is kind of a jerk, but that's Carl for you.

    In conclusion, King Kong is a faithful remake to probably the greatest movie ever made.
    Expand
  68. Feb 7, 2016
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. In many ways King Kong is a great film. It's cinematic, it's epic! The beginning gives you the feel that you're in for a great film. But alas it's all down hill from there.

    The biggest failure is in the action scenes that happen during the middle. There they fight a number of weird creatures and prehistoric beasts and it's all just so contrived and redundant. What was the point of all this? All it did was make me bored. It didn't help that it was very one toned so it was hard to tell what is going on. Plus the green screen was just terrible. Immersion in the world: zero.

    The second, and by far the most awkward thing about this film, was the film makers attempt to create some kind of romance between King Kong and Ann. Like supposedly in her brief time as a kidnapee she falls in love with him and all the time as I was watching it I wanted to yell: „lady, you're weird!" The whole thing is just bizarre.

    But it's all just a shame because the movie has a good story and interesting metaphors about film. The things that are not butchered are done well. It had the potential for greatness but it missed the mark.
    Expand
  69. Apr 23, 2015
    7
    By choosing to re-make King Kong, an American iconic masterpiece, Peter Jackson set a task for himself higher than the Empire State Building. Making this movie wasn't just following up The Lord of the Rings, it was the fulfillment of a lifelong dream. And, as with all such personal projects, this one ran the danger of not working because the director was too close to the material. (StevenBy choosing to re-make King Kong, an American iconic masterpiece, Peter Jackson set a task for himself higher than the Empire State Building. Making this movie wasn't just following up The Lord of the Rings, it was the fulfillment of a lifelong dream. And, as with all such personal projects, this one ran the danger of not working because the director was too close to the material. (Steven Spielberg's Hook and Atom Egoyan's Ararat fall into that category.) Fortunately, Jackson's passion for the material did not dim his creative senses. By combining the best elements of the 1933 and 1976 versions of the film with his own contributions, Jackson has made what many will consider to be the definitive King Kong. There's no need to try this story again; it's doubtful it can be improved upon.

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

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

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

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

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

    Would of been a lot better if it had been 40 minutes shorter.
    Expand
  70. May 30, 2016
    7
    Okay, i totally understand why people would dislike this film, it is long, it has a lot of CGI, good and bad, the acting may be campy, but for people who truly treasure the original 1933 film, this movie was a dream come true. At least for me it was.
    I'm a massive lover of the original stop-motion, brilliantly crafted 1933 King Kong, i think it's an absolute masterpiece, and too see Peter
    Okay, i totally understand why people would dislike this film, it is long, it has a lot of CGI, good and bad, the acting may be campy, but for people who truly treasure the original 1933 film, this movie was a dream come true. At least for me it was.
    I'm a massive lover of the original stop-motion, brilliantly crafted 1933 King Kong, i think it's an absolute masterpiece, and too see Peter Jackson, clearly a fan too, recreate that film, with state of the art special effect to reinvigorate this story, was heartwarming for me. The movie is longer, bigger, even more interesting, and i just love everything about it, because i love the original soo much. The movie gives you more information on each character, and their backstories, as expected for a movie almost double the length of the original, which was great for a fan like me to get to know more about the characters i've grown to love.

    King Kong was a total blast for me, and a heartwarming experience, seeing the awesome original stop-motion clay puppet fight between the T-Rex and King Kong, realised and beautified with pitch-perfect CGI was just one of many things i loved about King Kong.
    (The CGI of King Kong was absolutely astounding, obviously my compliments to Andy Serkis who pulls off yet another fantastic CG character performance, as he also did with The Lord of the Rings, the CGI of King Kong itself was beautiful, the rest of the movie's CGI was severely worse, especially a dinosaur stampede as the film crew has to flee out of a canyon, in that scene in particular the CGI was pretty bad.)

    Of course this movie lacks the beautiful simplicity and artistery the original film had, but the way PJ has done it, was truly incredible in my honest opinion

    I'm sorry King Kong haters, i'm completely on the other side of the spectrum on this one.
    Expand
  71. 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
  72. 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.
  73. 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.
  74. 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.
  75. 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.
  76. MichaelL.
    Dec 23, 2005
    6
    Only one hour too long.
  77. PeterS.
    Jan 5, 2006
    6
    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.
  78. RichardA
    Dec 19, 2005
    6
    Too long. Intelligent use of visual effects. Mostly stupid characters and very shallow story. Questions: How was Kong transferred from Skull Island to New York? (This could have been an interesting part of the story.) Why wasn't The Ape caged instead of being just chained? Why is the New York mayor so stupid to allow the show? How did Jack knew where Ann and Kong were sleeping? Why Too long. Intelligent use of visual effects. Mostly stupid characters and very shallow story. Questions: How was Kong transferred from Skull Island to New York? (This could have been an interesting part of the story.) Why wasn't The Ape caged instead of being just chained? Why is the New York mayor so stupid to allow the show? How did Jack knew where Ann and Kong were sleeping? Why is Ann so stupid (or was she just crazy in love)? Mwahaha... Expand
  79. WalkerR.
    Dec 22, 2005
    6
    Big effects, little substance. I forgot about the film as soon as I left the theater. The problem with these effects driven movies is they rely way to much on the CGI. Use it wisely my son. They lose their effect. I eventually became bored. Kong himself was good. But not enough to save the film. On top of that, its about 30 mins too long. Certaninly no LOTR. Peace out.
  80. VerminD.
    Dec 27, 2005
    6
    Not a bad film, but not a particularly good one either. Forgettable. In the same league as War of the Worlds, Batman, Narnia, Star Wars and all the other CGI work-outs that have come along this year. If I had to sum it up in one word I'd say 'confused'. Lots of bits seemed odd, especially Naomi Watts' interactions with Kong
  81. DanL.
    Dec 31, 2005
    6
    When they weren't on Skull Island, it was boring and some of the NYC street scenes looked real fakey.
  82. LeoF.
    Jan 17, 2006
    6
    3 hours long. For Pete's sake, (pun intended) why did it have to be 3 hours long? If it were 2 hours it would have been fantastic. Sorry, Peter. I absolutely loved, LOVED RotK and even that film was too long. Now this bloted ego trip. Will someone down his studio line reign him in? Economy in stoytelling is just as important as the other aspects in filmmaking. If Peter has the 3 hours long. For Pete's sake, (pun intended) why did it have to be 3 hours long? If it were 2 hours it would have been fantastic. Sorry, Peter. I absolutely loved, LOVED RotK and even that film was too long. Now this bloted ego trip. Will someone down his studio line reign him in? Economy in stoytelling is just as important as the other aspects in filmmaking. If Peter has the cojones to release a special edition 2-hour version DVD I guarantee it will sell. Expand
  83. JimJ.
    Jan 3, 2006
    6
    There are some thrilling scenes, but no real sense of cohesiveness that would give the scenes more impact. A lot of the dialogue is pretty bad and Jackson uses that horrible slow motion effect from the begining of Fellowship of the Ring an awful lot in Kong. The movie is too long, and despite what some people say on here it is perfectly fine to dislike a movie when it is longer than it There are some thrilling scenes, but no real sense of cohesiveness that would give the scenes more impact. A lot of the dialogue is pretty bad and Jackson uses that horrible slow motion effect from the begining of Fellowship of the Ring an awful lot in Kong. The movie is too long, and despite what some people say on here it is perfectly fine to dislike a movie when it is longer than it needs to be. That being said, 1930's New York looked great, the dinosaurs were amazing, and most of the actors gave captivating performances, particularly Naomi Watts. Expand
  84. masoudb.
    Jan 9, 2006
    6
    Not that impressed.
  85. ChrisU.
    Apr 16, 2006
    6
    I am completely surprised that this movie has garnered such praise. Yes, the visual effects (particularly Kong) are amazing. If for no other reason, see this movie because of the effects. But even then there are times when the dinosaurs and humans that are running around or beneath them (and drop-kicking them in some scenes) don't appear to be existing in the same area. They instead I am completely surprised that this movie has garnered such praise. Yes, the visual effects (particularly Kong) are amazing. If for no other reason, see this movie because of the effects. But even then there are times when the dinosaurs and humans that are running around or beneath them (and drop-kicking them in some scenes) don't appear to be existing in the same area. They instead look like they have been layered in (which they have) on screen and the end product ends up looking more silly than convincing. Unfortunately, the movie just becomes FAR too outlandish as the rescue party makes their way deeper into the jungles of Skull Island. I mean I understand that one must consider to let a few logical things slide in a movie like this, but watch the fight between Kong and the Tyrannosaurus Rexes or how Bruce Baxter swings in like Tarzan and saves the surviving rescue party members. There is no possible way either of those events, or many others in this three hour epic for that matter, would have transpired even remotely close to what we saw on screen. Couple that with sappy dialoge between much of the crew members (well I'll just say it...pretty much the entire cast) and Jack Black absolutely falling on his face attempting to play a role that requires much more emotional depth and acting range than he is capable of, and this movie becomes bogged down in its own grandiosity. To bad, because it's visually stunning and shows flashes of brilliance from director Peter Jackson (the scenes with the natives of Skull Island are downright scary). Ultimately this film is only held up by the fact that Kong and his environment looked so real, even beautiful. As far as dialogue, acting, and plot goes, this film collapses under its own weight. Expand
  86. B.Miller
    Apr 26, 2006
    6
    I was really hoping for much more from Peter Jackson. While some parts were brilliant the filIm just didn't absorb me into the story. Just becuse fantastic special effects can be done relatively easily these days, there is a point when they are overdone. There are just too many occassions when the action didn't seem plausible or real. This sounds odd when talking about about a I was really hoping for much more from Peter Jackson. While some parts were brilliant the filIm just didn't absorb me into the story. Just becuse fantastic special effects can be done relatively easily these days, there is a point when they are overdone. There are just too many occassions when the action didn't seem plausible or real. This sounds odd when talking about about a giant gorilla on an uncharted island but if an audience wants to believe that part, why spoil the fantasy with unrealistic fight sequences and other feats that defy physics or any credible reality? It's as if the budget was so bloated on this movie that they threw everything but the kitchen sink at it. Perhaps if the budget was tighter then some of the silly stuff might never have been made. And, possibly, a better movie may have emerged. Expand
  87. NCoste
    Dec 12, 2005
    6
    Too looooooooooog in parts, especially on the island. It get tiring after a while and I got very impatient for the plot to move on. It could have been a better movie if they spent $50 mil less on special effects and cut the movie by a half hour. That said it is still worthwhile for the good parts--especially the relationship between Kong and The Beauty.
  88. pushbutton
    Dec 14, 2005
    6
    An exercise for Peter Jackson's ego. The monkey looks good enough, but the film is too long and filled with plot devices and character developments that fail to engage the audience or move the story along.
  89. GeoffB.
    Dec 16, 2005
    6
    We have 200 million to spend! Let's see, we'll spend a fair bit on the screenplay?...... nah! On actors? ....whatever. On CGI?.....oh, yes indeedy! I fear that Peter Jackson went to the dark side and relied heavily on CGI, attempting to mask the fact that his movie has no soul. God help us if he turns into another George Lucas, offering us high-tech banality.
  90. J.N.
    Dec 17, 2005
    6
    A bit too long, a bit too much CGI, a bit too much a lot of things. This movie, although entertaining and emotional, makes the old saying "too much of a good thing" very true. Although much of the special effects were very well used, some parts, like with the dinosaurs falling on top of each other and the giant leeches, you just have to laugh. Enjoyable, but no masterpiece.
  91. GregS.
    Dec 18, 2005
    6
    What a disappointment. Even the 1933 version had a better story line. Sure the effects are amazing, but shouldn't they be? Terrible waste of energy. Bring back Jessica and Fay.
  92. SeamusS.
    Dec 19, 2005
    6
    Okay, It Was Just That, Okay. It Left Me Feeling Sad Towards The End (Not IN The Way Clearly Intended by the tearfest). I Wish I Loved it, I wanted to, i just couldnt.
  93. HopeI.
    Dec 19, 2005
    6
    Everything was perfect - except for the major flaw in every scene - it was too damn long !!! For god's sake - we get it already. What is wrong with this director - this was his same problem in Lord of the Rings. Back and forth on the same faces showing the same emotion....OK WE GET IT. My entire family - including two 13 year old boys both felt the same way.
  94. RicardoC.
    Dec 20, 2005
    6
    Not a bad movie, but overrated in every sense. I just didn't feel that it was THAT good of a movie. Peter Jackson is still one of my favorite directors, but the only thing I really really liked were the expressive eyes of King Kong and the nice vistas of the Skull Island!!
  95. EdwardS.
    Dec 28, 2005
    6
    6-star film with an 8-star film swallowed up inside it. Apart from wretched excess running potentially winning action sequences into the ground, the current release desperately needs: 1. An intermission right after the 'spider pit' sequence; and 2. A (much) better score - Bernard Hermann would have put audiences' fatigued bums right on the edges of their seats with the same 6-star film with an 8-star film swallowed up inside it. Apart from wretched excess running potentially winning action sequences into the ground, the current release desperately needs: 1. An intermission right after the 'spider pit' sequence; and 2. A (much) better score - Bernard Hermann would have put audiences' fatigued bums right on the edges of their seats with the same visuals... Expand
  96. BenC.
    Dec 28, 2005
    6
    Mixed bag, and that's a disappointment from Mr. Jackson. There are very effective moments in this movie (the T-Rex brawl, many of the Ann/Kong moments, and the savages were down-right terrifying) but there are equally ridiculous moments which sap the validity of the story. For me, the first of these occurs when the brontos stampede over our heroes... it's just flat-out stupid Mixed bag, and that's a disappointment from Mr. Jackson. There are very effective moments in this movie (the T-Rex brawl, many of the Ann/Kong moments, and the savages were down-right terrifying) but there are equally ridiculous moments which sap the validity of the story. For me, the first of these occurs when the brontos stampede over our heroes... it's just flat-out stupid that anyone could survive that, not to mention some of the WORST effects seen in a long time. Sure, sure some will say 'movies are about fun and checking your brain at the door' but that's misguided; they're about making the unbelievable believable, and this movie disappointed me in that regard once we get into some very ingenuous plot decisions on Skull island. Also I found Jack Black somewhat disappointing, or rather Jack Black's recurring wide-eyed stares... cuz that's really all there is of him. Expand
  97. VisheshC.
    Dec 29, 2005
    6
    Unecessarily Long. Exaggerated even for a science fiction flick. Although the effects and the sequence make up for the abruptness of the movie.
  98. AlanD.
    Dec 15, 2005
    6
    This movie is in the same vein as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy - great special effects but overly long. The story didn't pull me in emotionally and this made some of the corny dialogue even harder to bear. I give it a six just for the Ty Rex vs. Kong battle...
  99. JasonA
    Dec 18, 2005
    6
    First off, the movie is fun. So, for anyone to argue over whether some scenes are credible or not is moot. But the writing sucks, and i'll hold Peter Jackson accountable because his name is on the film. Also, Jackson should've trimmed the fat off of this film, it's a little to long. A half hour would suffice. As far as the actors, I hate Jack Black, for some reason he lends First off, the movie is fun. So, for anyone to argue over whether some scenes are credible or not is moot. But the writing sucks, and i'll hold Peter Jackson accountable because his name is on the film. Also, Jackson should've trimmed the fat off of this film, it's a little to long. A half hour would suffice. As far as the actors, I hate Jack Black, for some reason he lends no credibility to the film. I know the role was to supposed to have some humor in it but Black's forte is physical humor this film didn't ask for that. Some of the dialogue is just painful like the scene in the diner between Anne and Black's character. While watching it, I thought John Waters would've been perfect for the role but surely he wouldn't put his name on this film. Overall, Jackson's problems are excessiveness just too much of everything. I will say the Empire State Building scene was great. Expand
  100. JohntheCritic
    Dec 18, 2005
    6
    The movie was slow. Nice special effects. Acting ok to good. Plot had elements that could have been better developed to have a more interesting story especially with the long length of the film. On my personal rating system it was a
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.