King Kong

User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1286 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. Feb 14, 2013
    10
    Peter Jackson has done it again. King Kong is majestic, beautifully executed and a stunning love story. The movie is simple, but so effective, just a tragic story that holds you emotionally and visually from beginning to end. King Kong proves that Jackson is one hell of a director.
  4. Bob
    Dec 15, 2005
    0
    Lets call a spade a spade. If you are so fascinated by special effects there are plenty of video games you could buy that can entertain your ADD. But to give this crapola high marks when the acting is so awful and the story unoriginal is beyond all imagination. Jack Black and Adrian Brody sucked. Its that pure and simple. The movie dragged on forever. There was no dialogue, no chemistry Lets call a spade a spade. If you are so fascinated by special effects there are plenty of video games you could buy that can entertain your ADD. But to give this crapola high marks when the acting is so awful and the story unoriginal is beyond all imagination. Jack Black and Adrian Brody sucked. Its that pure and simple. The movie dragged on forever. There was no dialogue, no chemistry between the two stars; unless of course you mean The Big Ape and the girl. As for Adrian Brody I think she wanted to puke. The story is dated and totally implausable with more holes than Carter has Little Liver Pills. Don't be blindsighted by the Hollywood Left Wing. This movie is awful and I wouldn't watch it again unless you placed bamboo shoots in both of my eyes. Come to think of it I think the racist natives had bamboo shoots coming out of their eyes and every other oraface in their face. Nestle should be very proud that they sponsored a racist scene. Didn't anyone look at how the natives were portrayed? Talk about sterotyping, oh my God. This movie was preposterous and about two hours too long. Avoid at all costs. Expand
  5. Jakefreydont-A.
    Dec 16, 2005
    2
    I didn't give it a 0 because I did enjoy the first 45 minutes, you know, the part with the dialog. The rest is just a loud obnoxious video game. There was no reason for this movie to get made, it is so boring, what a waste of $200 mil. and I'm sure peter jackson thinks he's a great director.... sad.
  6. Allen
    Jan 2, 2006
    0
    Dennis you said anyone who gives this film a rating lower than a 5 is not to be taken seriously? Likewise your rating is preposterous. There was no dialogue in this tedious film. The acting was inept and the directing even worse. I have seen better special effects on video games. As for the story it is not original as it is a remake of a remake. There was no suspense as everyone knows the Dennis you said anyone who gives this film a rating lower than a 5 is not to be taken seriously? Likewise your rating is preposterous. There was no dialogue in this tedious film. The acting was inept and the directing even worse. I have seen better special effects on video games. As for the story it is not original as it is a remake of a remake. There was no suspense as everyone knows the ending. As for the storyline what Jackson did was a disgrace. He robbed other movies and tried to do one better. The Skull Island scene was preposterous. There were more plot holes than Carter has little liver pills. Basically what you are advocating is checking your brains in at the door. The audience I saw it with was booing and screaming Refund when they were not walking out. This terrible version of Kong was worse than the 1976 remake and I for one did not think that was possible. Jack Black is one dimensional and was awful as well as being miscast. The movie was about 2 hours too long and the boring first hour set up nothing. Can anyone tell us how the Big Ape was transported on the little broken down boat back to NYC. After all he couldn't fit down into the hull, was too big for the cages and how did they keep him locked up without destroying the boat? This is the same Kong who destroyed NY on cue without doing so at the rehersals for the big Broadway spectacular in 1933 Depression NY. By the way then how come everyone had a tuxedo on? And do people go out in the snow without a coat in a spring dress with high heels on? Please this movie is a disaster movie all right but for all the wrong reasons. A perfect 10? You're either dreaming or had a lobotomy? Expand
  7. Jeff
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    Gratuitous, soulless, shallow and stupid. This isn't a movie: it's a video game.
  8. sirgeorge
    May 8, 2006
    0
    I just saw movie on dvd and its by far the worst movie I've ever seen. did Peter look at the movie before he gave it to the studio? did anyone notice when they tried to capture kong the first time the path they would of tried to carry him through? what about how did he get to new york? the boat was too small for the crew! what about when kong escaped in new york? it was a thousand I just saw movie on dvd and its by far the worst movie I've ever seen. did Peter look at the movie before he gave it to the studio? did anyone notice when they tried to capture kong the first time the path they would of tried to carry him through? what about how did he get to new york? the boat was too small for the crew! what about when kong escaped in new york? it was a thousand cabs in the street then he sees the girl and everything and everyone dissapears at one time! and to top it off, he plays on the ice in new york city. WOW! PETER, WATCH THE MOVIE BEFORE YOU SEND IT IN! Expand
  9. BrendanD.
    Apr 20, 2007
    0
    The "King Kong" with Faye Wray was a horrible, schlocky story that, quite frankly, demeaned everyone who worked on it, Wray included. The "King Kong" with Jeff Daniels suffered from its own epic delusions, finally crumbling under the weight of a horrible direction. But Peter Jackson's take on "King Kong" is the worst version of the most overrated story of all time. First of all, The "King Kong" with Faye Wray was a horrible, schlocky story that, quite frankly, demeaned everyone who worked on it, Wray included. The "King Kong" with Jeff Daniels suffered from its own epic delusions, finally crumbling under the weight of a horrible direction. But Peter Jackson's take on "King Kong" is the worst version of the most overrated story of all time. First of all, Jackson tries to approach this version with the same eye that Steven Spielberg used in the first hour or so of "Jurassic Park." At this point, however, you can't do that, because "Jurassic Park" did that awe-inspiring animated-animals moment better than any movie before or since -- it still sends a shiver up my spine when I watch the brontosaur jump up to grab the top leaves on the trees. There is no "wow" moment in Jackson's "King Kong" because Jackson tries to cram "wow" moments in every five or six minutes, completely obliterating their impact. Now, I've heard from both critics and members of my own family that the ape was beautifully animated. I say now what I said to them: WHAT?!? Through the entire damned movie, all I could think was, "Wow, that ape doesn't look real at all; it looks like a character from an XBOX-360 game." The world in which Kong lives is likewise hokey, looking like nothing but lame backdrops excised from "Return of the King" (easily the worst and most pretentious of the "Lord of the Rings" movies). Then there's the writing. The story of "Kong" is bad enough, but humanizing the animal only makes it worse. Let's make one thing clear: Kong is a giant ape who appears to have marked intelligence and emotion. But he is still an ape! A friend once told me that this is a stupid reason to dislike the film, but frankly, I don't know how anyone could put the obvious bestial implications out of his or her mind. To be fair, the movie never even comes close to touching the bestiality subject; but the fact that there's even a hint that Naomi Watts's character might be feeling something for the ape is a little bit nausea-inducing. If there bond between Watts and the ape had been more a mother-son kind of relationship, the film might've worked better; but as it stands, it straddles the love relationship without fully dedicating itself one way or the other whilst hinting at the obviously disturbing prospect of an affair between the two. Meanwhile, the script itself is horrendous. There is not one good piece of dialogue throughout the entire film. I'm not sure if Jackson allowed a herd of rabid, mentally-challenged Venusian cows to write it, or if he got so wrapped up in chase scenes and third-rate "Jurassic Park" tyrannosaur knock-offs that he forgot that what's being said is important, but either way, not even Jack Black can save some of the dumbest lines ever uttered in cinematic history. ...Which brings me to my next point: The acting was atrocious. I have to disagree with those who have been pseudo-apologists for Jack Black, Naomi Watts, and Andy Serkis. Each of the three has done brilliant work in the past, but "Kong" is not something they should put on their resumes. Black spends the entire movie looking lost, and Serkis, who deserved a million awards for the Gollum-schizophrenia scene in "The Two Towers," does not make the big ape any more realistic. Even Watts, who at least attempts to bring something to the table, ends up crumbling under the weight of an overwrought, underdeveloped, underwritten script, and her performance suffers precisely because of it. Then there's Peter Jackson. After "The Two Towers," which I still believe was his crowning achievement as a director, I was willing to forgive the tedious final hour of "Return of the King," especially because the final two scenes were so emotionally powerful. "King Kong," however, is a directorial mess. He switches camera angles at all the wrong times, and he doesn't focus on what he should when he should. For example, the penultimate scene, the famous one in which Kong is assaulted by mighty fighter jets, gets lost in its own action; rather than using the beautiful backdrop of New York City as its focal point, it uses Kong, and Watts gets lost. This is no good, especially when the skyline of New York is dolled up to look like something out of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow." And here's another problem: the scale of everything changes when Kong gets to New York City. Kong was easily the largest thing on Skull Island; yet he is all-of-a-sudden minuscule when he climbs up the Empire State Building. This scene actually worked in previous incarnations of "Kong" because the ape wasn't meant to look too real, giving the (admittedly dumb) story a kind of fairy-tale feel to it. Here, however, Jackson has made a lot of attempts to show Kong's fur waving in the wind, his eyes twitching and blinking like a human's, his mouth occasionally twisting up into a man-like smile. You can't have it both ways! The ape has more distinct mannerisms than any Kong before it, and yet the Empire State Building looks like it could reach the Cloud City from "The Empire Strikes Back." Finally, as many have pointed out, there's the running time. Yes, about a good hour could've been trimmed off the movie and still gotten Jackson's point across, potentially better. But the first forty-five minutes are a snore, too, even though there's lots of plot happening; likewise, the return to New York City, before Kong shows up, is a snoozer, although it contains the entire setup for the Grand Finale. And that's not even counting the hour and a half (or so) Jackson spends on all the different weirdo Skull Island creatures. The point is, the movie plods along rather than meanders; and the action sequences, far from advancing the plot, make the story come to an absolute stand-still in favor of bang-bang-bang action. Honestly, I cannot fathom what possessed critics (or anyone else) to recommend this film. It is one of the most pretentious, boring, stupid movies ever made, and Jackson ought to issue a bigger apology for this than George Lucas needs to for "The Phantom Menace." We live in a digital age, which could've given Jackson the chance to bring something new to the Kong mythos. Instead, he simply rehashes what's already done (and actually kind of dumbs it down), crafting a movie that might've looked good in 1933, but that now just makes me want to throw popcorn at the screen and sit there for another three hours demanding that Jackson compensate me for the time spent watching this awful mess. Expand
  10. VaibhavD.
    Dec 19, 2005
    1
    I went to watch this despite my rule to avoid $100 million plus extravaganzas. I was seduced by the critics surprisingly gushing response and had to overcome my own tepid feelings for the subject matter of the movie. In retrospect I greatly regretted this experience. The movie is abysmal and does not function at any level that is expected to be deeper than a video game. Apart from writing I went to watch this despite my rule to avoid $100 million plus extravaganzas. I was seduced by the critics surprisingly gushing response and had to overcome my own tepid feelings for the subject matter of the movie. In retrospect I greatly regretted this experience. The movie is abysmal and does not function at any level that is expected to be deeper than a video game. Apart from writing a review of the movie, someone needs to write a critical review of the reviews. How has this film achieved universal acclaim from professional critics? Did Jackson release two prints, one for the critics that was decent and one for the rest of us, that was abysmal? Or for some inexplicable reason, did the critics feel like they had to write the reviews they did. Most great films get better the more one thinks about them. This movie just seems worse and worse when you rewind it in your mind. The ape effects and Sirkis are good but you can see these parts in the free previews on the web. These brief moments simply (and not frequently enough) punctuate vast swathes of tedium and idiocy. I recommend that you avoid this movie at all costs. Expand
  11. Katherine
    Jul 28, 2006
    0
    Why did they make ANOTHER King Kong? I mean it has been made about 8 times, and everyone knows how it ends. Kong dies at the end. So it's not like you changed it so much. It ends the same. So why don't the directors of today just stop taking other peoples ideas and be original.
  12. DiegoF.
    Jan 18, 2007
    1
    I'm surprised about the great rating this movie has been given! It's painful to watch it! I couldn't finish the movie because it bored me so much! The only good aspects would be the special effects which you can always tell if they are computer graphics or miniatures. The first hour of the movie is alright but once the monkey appears it's just bullshit! The fight of I'm surprised about the great rating this movie has been given! It's painful to watch it! I couldn't finish the movie because it bored me so much! The only good aspects would be the special effects which you can always tell if they are computer graphics or miniatures. The first hour of the movie is alright but once the monkey appears it's just bullshit! The fight of Kong with the 3 T-rexes is so bad! The director forgot tha humans have bones. Kong kept throwing Ann into the air and grabbing her with his feet or hands. After the first grab a human would probably be dead! Maybe as a remake it's good, I don't know because I never saw the originall. As a movie it stinks! Expand
  13. EricK.
    May 11, 2008
    0
    A disgrace to the original, which is one of the greatest films of all time.
  14. D.S.
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    This is simply a bad movie. Maybe the made the video game first, which is why it's all about dinosaurs and giant insects? The plot is jumpy and incoherent, and the characters are not developed at all. The so-called love story with Watts & Brody is a joke. Why are people saying this is a good movie? It's not!
  15. TwoHankies
    Dec 17, 2005
    0
    C'mon this is the best con job since the invention of the pet rock. There was no acting, no originality, and certainly nothing more than an expensive video game. The critics must have had a lobotomy to have liked this crap. Avoid.
  16. LeszekK.
    Dec 18, 2005
    4
    I liked the acting except maybe for Jack Black. I couldn't get passed the fact that it was Jack Black in order to see the character played by him. It reminds me of Tom Cruise's syndrome. I thought the middle part of the film, the one on Skull Island dragged and was gratuitous. It was like Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, and a trailer for a video game. Peter Jackson indulged I liked the acting except maybe for Jack Black. I couldn't get passed the fact that it was Jack Black in order to see the character played by him. It reminds me of Tom Cruise's syndrome. I thought the middle part of the film, the one on Skull Island dragged and was gratuitous. It was like Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, and a trailer for a video game. Peter Jackson indulged and really bored me. The action sequences with the dinasaurs and insects had little thematically to do with the King Kong story. It really detracted from the main story. It's amazing how brain numbing Jackson's films can be. I enjoyed the New York and ship scenes. Expand
  17. MarkR.
    Dec 18, 2005
    0
    Absolutely brutal. No special effects can make up for bad acting, terrible directing, no orignality and plot holes you can drive a Mack truck through. And that first hour how boring get you get. As for the rest of it, if I want to be entertained with a video game that doesn't make any sense I can do that for a lot less than what I paid to see this crapola.
  18. MattY.
    Feb 11, 2007
    3
    The most amazing thing about King Kong is its consistency. This film delivers something genuinely idiotic every 10-15 seconds. After 3 hours of horrible dialogue, flat stock characers, and implausible action scenes, my throat was sore from scoffing. Generally, I would not waste my time railing about a Hollywood action movie.. but the amount of MONEY dumped into this movie makes the result The most amazing thing about King Kong is its consistency. This film delivers something genuinely idiotic every 10-15 seconds. After 3 hours of horrible dialogue, flat stock characers, and implausible action scenes, my throat was sore from scoffing. Generally, I would not waste my time railing about a Hollywood action movie.. but the amount of MONEY dumped into this movie makes the result more profane than the typical big-budget drivel. Man, you could change the world with $300,000,000... or you could make a few bucks and lower the worlds collective IQ.. Great choice Peter. Expand
  19. BrianO.W.
    Dec 17, 2005
    5
    Like watching over someone's shoulder as they played a videogame, KONG is perfect entertainment for 21st century's visually overloaded "switch-yr-brain-off-and -enjoy-the-ride" audiences. I'm getting far more entertainment out of the comments posted here and I hope Jackson hires some of the users on this forum to write his next brain-dead comedy. According to them if you Like watching over someone's shoulder as they played a videogame, KONG is perfect entertainment for 21st century's visually overloaded "switch-yr-brain-off-and -enjoy-the-ride" audiences. I'm getting far more entertainment out of the comments posted here and I hope Jackson hires some of the users on this forum to write his next brain-dead comedy. According to them if you don't rate this film a 10 you're 'pretensious", or "a snob", who must "hate movies' or didn't actually even watch it before posting a review(!!). Apparently a 3 hour duration is excusable because there are other movies that are 3 hrs long. It's hard to choose between the funniest comment between John B, who claims this remake would 'genius if it had not been done before" (mind boggling!) or Daniel T who claims that this mega-budget remake of a classic (in itself an indication of the banal recycling endemic of current cinema) is somehow an "...antidote to the banality of modern cinema'! Oh God, LOL! Expand
  20. BillyD.
    Dec 25, 2005
    2
    I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. The beginning was drawn out but okay. The middle might has well have been cutscenes from a videogame. And the ending was very welcome. Shame on all I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. The beginning was drawn out but okay. The middle might has well have been cutscenes from a videogame. And the ending was very welcome. Shame on all involved for making me hate a fight between dinosaurs and a gargatuan ape. I should have been the easiest sell in the world, but instead I watched my shoes for the last hour of the movie. Expand
  21. Jan 22, 2014
    10
    Kong resonates almost every genre in a turbulent movie ride of a lifetime. There is so much cinematic elements of range happening in every scene that can be occasionally an unusual mixture, but to embrace film and it's artistry all jammed into a 3 hour epic of our time is before you in another one of Peter Jackson's excellent work.
  22. Aug 26, 2013
    9
    A superb remake, and a thrilling adventure on its own terms, King Kong was one of 2005's most entertaining movies. It starts out slow, with a very 1930's vibe. I wouldn't consider the sections before the crew gets close to Skull Island great filmmaking exactly, but Jackson has made good choice not to rush the story. Once they get to the island it proves that it was well worth the halfA superb remake, and a thrilling adventure on its own terms, King Kong was one of 2005's most entertaining movies. It starts out slow, with a very 1930's vibe. I wouldn't consider the sections before the crew gets close to Skull Island great filmmaking exactly, but Jackson has made good choice not to rush the story. Once they get to the island it proves that it was well worth the half hour wait. Believable performances, for the most part incredible special effects, Jackson's expert direction, and real emotion make this a must own. Granted, when I first saw the previews years ago I was hoping for a more surreal and out there vision of the story, but what we got was more than good enough. Almost forgot to mention how great the movie's score was. (That means the background music.) Expand
  23. Mar 3, 2013
    10
    This is probably the most anticipated movie of 2005. It was very entertaining and very unpredictable. Naomi Watts and Jack Black were fantastic for their roles. It's so entertaining that the 3 hours of it feels like 1 hour.
  24. Aug 14, 2010
    10
    King Kong is one of the most memorable and celebrated stories of all-time. This remake or "re-envisioned" version of the original King Kongs is stunning, heartful, and simply unforgettable. Peter Jackson creates a remarkable and haunting Skull Island. King Kong is arguably the greatest CGI character of all-time. Forget 'Avatar', this is CGI at its best. Kong has emotion, cuts, etc.King Kong is one of the most memorable and celebrated stories of all-time. This remake or "re-envisioned" version of the original King Kongs is stunning, heartful, and simply unforgettable. Peter Jackson creates a remarkable and haunting Skull Island. King Kong is arguably the greatest CGI character of all-time. Forget 'Avatar', this is CGI at its best. Kong has emotion, cuts, etc. You can practically believe he or any other creature of Skull Island are real, thanks to the superb visuals. Despite the huge runtime, Kong never falters and does justice to its source material-and then some. I truly believe that this version of Kong is the best ever released. Everything is damn-right perfect, and you can't help but cry at the end, even though you already know what is going to happen to Kong. This movie transcends all of its hype and truly engages us on all levels: visual, intellectual and emotional. A true masterpiece. Go see it-now. Expand
  25. Aug 24, 2011
    5
    Special effects were out of this world awesome, and the storyline was pretty good...BUT...it was about an hour too long! It spends a good 40 minutes of the movie before it even gets to King Kong! then we still have to witness his capture/relationship with Naomi Watts' character, and his tirade in New York City! I have only been able to watch it all the way through in one sitting once.Special effects were out of this world awesome, and the storyline was pretty good...BUT...it was about an hour too long! It spends a good 40 minutes of the movie before it even gets to King Kong! then we still have to witness his capture/relationship with Naomi Watts' character, and his tirade in New York City! I have only been able to watch it all the way through in one sitting once. Also, Jack Black just drags the cast down. There are SOO many other great actors in the movie that he sticks out like a sore thumb. Great "try" but I expected better. Expand
  26. FrancoN.
    Oct 24, 2007
    3
    Like the big ape himself, this movie was bloated and flabby. They could have at least cut 45 minutes out of it.
  27. Dickie
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Jackson goes wild with his $200M box of crayons and crapola is the result. He miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. His first hour is boring and unncecessary. Then when we get to Jurassic Park the man loses all credibility with laughable writing, lack of editing, and poor directing. Half of this movie should have been omitted and perhaps with someone having some talent we could have had Jackson goes wild with his $200M box of crayons and crapola is the result. He miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. His first hour is boring and unncecessary. Then when we get to Jurassic Park the man loses all credibility with laughable writing, lack of editing, and poor directing. Half of this movie should have been omitted and perhaps with someone having some talent we could have had meaningful dialogue? But instead we get a mishmosh with Jackson playing with his CGI to his hearts content in producing a video game that only a ten year old with a lobotomized brain could love? In reading the reviews did some of you juvenile posters actually say this was the best movie ever? The fact that with all the PR Kong dropped from number one at the Box Office in less than 2 weeks says all that has to be said. This is a very poor effort by Jackson on the recent order of George Lucas. The only thing missing from this disaster was casting Tom Cruise. Jack Black and Tom Cruise in War of The Worlds. Two no-talents in blockbusters in the same year. Ugly! Expand
  28. CongoGongo
    Jan 9, 2006
    0
    If this movie was on the Gong Show it would be booed off the stage. Just a total joke with bad directing by an otherwise overrated in love with himself Peter Jackson. Jack Black needs to find another career. Preposterous.
  29. DavidD.
    Feb 20, 2006
    1
    Gorilla animation fine, tho out of scale most of the time,.Way too long and needlessly gory - bad for kids.
  30. MikeG.
    Dec 20, 2005
    3
    A big disappointment, especially for a movie that did a great job of ratcheting up the tension in the first hour or so of the movie. Jackson also made 1932 NYC look spectacular, gave motivation to Black, Watts and the rest of the cast. Suddenly, the movie morphed into a B-picture, complete with action movie cliche after action movie cliche that just made the audience squirm and groan. The A big disappointment, especially for a movie that did a great job of ratcheting up the tension in the first hour or so of the movie. Jackson also made 1932 NYC look spectacular, gave motivation to Black, Watts and the rest of the cast. Suddenly, the movie morphed into a B-picture, complete with action movie cliche after action movie cliche that just made the audience squirm and groan. The movie looks great, but it just felt long and ultimately boring. Why make this movie if all you're going to do is modernize the special effects? The story of man's inhumanity to beast is lost somewhere along the way here, resulting in nothing more than a technically spectacular director flexing his muscle. We all know Jackson can make a movie look great. Somehow, after his masterpiece "Return of the King", I was expecting so much more. Expand
  31. TomP.
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    King Kong is truly remarkable in how horrific a production it is. I go to movies with mixed reviews generally with the hope that it may provice different meanings to different people, in other words, it is open to interpretation. No. There was nothing to this movie beyond action that suddenly and inexplicably grinds to a halt time and time again, followed endlessly by another dinosaur, King Kong is truly remarkable in how horrific a production it is. I go to movies with mixed reviews generally with the hope that it may provice different meanings to different people, in other words, it is open to interpretation. No. There was nothing to this movie beyond action that suddenly and inexplicably grinds to a halt time and time again, followed endlessly by another dinosaur, spider, or any number of conveniently-placed CGI-disasters approaching silently and unnoticed from behind. But this movie saddens me the most simply because I have remained earnestly and reasonably unconvinced of the elitist notion that the public was completely diluted and that everyone is essentially an idiot beyond ourselves. Well, congrats, American public, you have lost the faith of yet another in your approval of this film, and thanks Peter Jackson, for making me realize I actualy am smarter and less dim-witted than 90% of movie-goers today. You scammed me good with this one, got my $6.25 and the rest of the good people's in my theater. I feel that the only reason that more viewers didn't walk out of this movie besides me and my best friend was because it is unfortunately slightly embarrassing and, yes, "elitist", to throw up your hands in disgust in the middle of a movie theater and promtly leave. I used to firmly believe that ALL people were more complex that they first seem. Statistical discrimination, I guess, is justified. Expand
  32. GeorgeR.
    Dec 20, 2005
    2
    It would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except for the stunning scene atop the empire state building (i've never been more afraid of heights - praise to the background artists), there was noIt would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except for the stunning scene atop the empire state building (i've never been more afraid of heights - praise to the background artists), there was no motivation to make this movie again. kong still moves like the stop-motion animated creature from the 30's (too sharply or too laboriously), naomi watts looks like a bucktoothed flatchested hillbilly, and kong is kong is kong - no new insights. why were all these non-elements worth three hours of my life? if for whatever reason i ever taught a class in editing at an elementary school i would assign students this movie and ask them to make a one hour and 50 minute version. it would undoubtedly take them all of a half hour to do so. what were the filmmaker$ thinking? Expand
  33. GlennR.
    Dec 30, 2005
    1
    Simply put, 'King Kong' is a really bad movie. It's too long, it's poorly written, the dialog is awkward, there is no chemistry between the stars (with the exception of Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis), and it's miscast (it's clear that Jack Black was cast solely for his box office appeal, because he is not at all believable as a high-powered movie producer). Simply put, 'King Kong' is a really bad movie. It's too long, it's poorly written, the dialog is awkward, there is no chemistry between the stars (with the exception of Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis), and it's miscast (it's clear that Jack Black was cast solely for his box office appeal, because he is not at all believable as a high-powered movie producer). Many of the special effects looked no different to me than special effects in movies from the 70's -- or even the 30's for that matter -- so I'm not sure why we're supposed to be wowed by them. Many of the scenes were so drawn out and repetitive that I was actually bored. The subplots -- the romance and the coming of age story -- were listless and uninteresting. The only redeeming parts of the movie were the performances by the beautiful and talented Watts, who did a decent job making me think she actually cared about the ape, and by Serkis, who made the ape seem almost human at times. Other than that, I thought it was a complete waste of $9.75 and three hours. The ending is supposed to be sad, but instead I was mostly happy and relieved that it was over. Expand
  34. AverageTome
    May 11, 2006
    4
    This was not what I expected. To add a cool effect to this movie, i would have made it in B&W. While the special effects to this movie were stellar, i found it annoying that Kong was first introduced nearly halfway into the movie. The first 45 minutes are just a waste of time to watch and not really that important to the real action and body of the story. (If you get the DVD, just skip to This was not what I expected. To add a cool effect to this movie, i would have made it in B&W. While the special effects to this movie were stellar, i found it annoying that Kong was first introduced nearly halfway into the movie. The first 45 minutes are just a waste of time to watch and not really that important to the real action and body of the story. (If you get the DVD, just skip to the Skull Island scene.) The fact that Naomi Watts had a dialogue of basically screaming for the entirety of the movie set me off as well because she is a fairly good actor in reality. Some of it was pretty gruesome which was not what i expected at all. (Such as the man getting eaten alive by the leeches before being brought down to a watery death... and the villagers.) Jack Black was totally out of character and I did not enjoy that at all. As soon as i found out that he was going to be doing the 2006 KCA's i knew that his career was going to be officially over after doing that and this. The animation and production quality are my only two plus sides to this movie. Get the DVD because while not the greatest on earth, it is still average and sort of worth buying. Expand
  35. 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.
  36. GoffyA.
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    How bad can a movie be? In two words: KING KONG.
  37. Jul 3, 2011
    0
    This is my least favorite movie of all time.
    In his attempt to make King Kong more like Lord of the Rings, Jackson has made an epic exposition of unbelievable events and stupidity. This movie is at least 1 hour too long and every action scene is less plausible than the last, removing all tension and immersion. There are no likable protagonists, villains or heroes and the plot and
    This is my least favorite movie of all time.
    In his attempt to make King Kong more like Lord of the Rings, Jackson has made an epic exposition of unbelievable events and stupidity. This movie is at least 1 hour too long and every action scene is less plausible than the last, removing all tension and immersion. There are no likable protagonists, villains or heroes and the plot and character development are more childish than an episode of Sponge Bob.
    I truly hate this pile of crap that King Kong himself could not excrete from his massive anus.
    Expand
  38. Jun 30, 2012
    3
    The more I watch this movie, the crappier it gets. Why? Because half of it is just screaming.. The acting was crap for the most part, I hate to **** talk Peter Jackson, but sorry man, this one was good for its time, but it has died to me.
  39. LeeC.
    May 5, 2006
    8
    Extremely Great Movie.
  40. JayB.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    This isn't your great grand daddy's Kong! Jackson has swung at his lifelong dream project, and he has clearly hit the game winning grand slam in the bottom of the ninth inning of the 7th game of the World Series. Jackson keeps reinventing the cinema. That ape had more personality and emotion than half the fluffy Hollywood actors working today! A couple of things concerned me This isn't your great grand daddy's Kong! Jackson has swung at his lifelong dream project, and he has clearly hit the game winning grand slam in the bottom of the ninth inning of the 7th game of the World Series. Jackson keeps reinventing the cinema. That ape had more personality and emotion than half the fluffy Hollywood actors working today! A couple of things concerned me going in: (A) The 3 hour length, (B) Jack Black as the lead character, and (C) Did this classic REALLY need to be remade once again? Well, all I can say is (A) never has 3 hours moved so swiftly, (B) Jack Black can be successfully directed in a non-comedic role, and (C) not only did it need to be remade, but this is the movie that had everything that was missing in the original: namely, an ape with enough heart, emotion, and character to make grown people cry at his demise, and special effects so dazzling that you'd swear that reality was happening before your very eyes! Enough will be written in the weeks to come about its various shortcomings (and ALL film can be critiqued to death if you stop and think about it!) but what can't be ignored is that this is one helluva masterpiece in design, flow, and character study that will go down as one of the greatest achievements in cinema history. Run, do not walk, to see and revel in this magical fantasy by this genius filmmaker!!! Expand
  41. MyWhirledView
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Best movie of the year... I wasn't sure how it would go, and fearing the worst... but I wasn't disappointed! Go see it today!
  42. JohnH.
    Dec 14, 2005
    0
    This is just bad. Mr. Jackson has failed us again.
  43. InsanelySane
    Dec 19, 2005
    3
    This film.... ...deserves some credit for the sheer amount of work put into the mostly pointless CGI... I cannot think of an appropriate metaphor to describe the torture I had gone through sitting in the cinema - with insulting action sequences and hollow, shallow attempts at immersing a sense of wonder which made me, I swear on this, feel ill and depressed when the nightmare finally This film.... ...deserves some credit for the sheer amount of work put into the mostly pointless CGI... I cannot think of an appropriate metaphor to describe the torture I had gone through sitting in the cinema - with insulting action sequences and hollow, shallow attempts at immersing a sense of wonder which made me, I swear on this, feel ill and depressed when the nightmare finally ended.. I find it ridiculous how technology excuses much of what should not be allowed to be excused!! - Some vague attempt at emotion used in CGI DOES NOT WARRANT comments that say that this is an emotional film or that it has depth and character. For those who dont pick up on shallowness and allow TOTALLY ILLOGICAL scenarios to unfold without wanting to shriek out in disgust that any sense of reality has been utterly suspended, I challenge you all to give reasons for your satisfaction with this drawn out and melodramatic film. The pain of sitting through a transparent, cliched and sour script where every potential for emotion had to be spelt out and every action explained, killed any sense of mystery or identification with the characters, the time period or the anticipation for adventure.. argh yet again I cant stand writing my own review it gets me so angry!! why do these films have to be so safe and so freakin dumbed down?!?! its sad and perhaps its my fault and I should retreat back to my fantasy world where risk is a necessary means to allowing the imagination to evolve.. Expand
  44. 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
  45. JoshK.
    Jan 2, 2006
    10
    Simply amazing. One of the best, if not the best film this year.
  46. 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
  47. LouisM.
    Jan 6, 2006
    10
    I am very critical on movies and they need to really blow me away before I start saying good things. To describe this movie in words just does not make sense. It is a visual feast to say the least. It is filled with emotion and honesty. The depiction of Kong's personality is endearing. The movie frightens, humours, saddens, but most of all, entertains beyond belief. 3 hours never I am very critical on movies and they need to really blow me away before I start saying good things. To describe this movie in words just does not make sense. It is a visual feast to say the least. It is filled with emotion and honesty. The depiction of Kong's personality is endearing. The movie frightens, humours, saddens, but most of all, entertains beyond belief. 3 hours never felt this short. A movie for people who will never grow up and who will never stop believing in incredible fantasy. Films like these are the reason I go to the movies. Expand
  48. GrahamS.
    Jan 9, 2006
    5
    At least an hour too long. Good performances from all actors, and special effects - but I was completely bored by this stage.
  49. Mart
    Feb 6, 2006
    9
    I was surprised by how good this film is.I didn't enjoy any of the LOTR films(I must be the only person on Earth) but Jackson redeemed himself with this one.Once the action starts it rarely stops.Unlike the LOTR I didn't feel the time go.Also, Jack Black is very entertaining in the Orson Welles-type role.
  50. JackM.
    Apr 1, 2006
    5
    The middle hour on Skull Island is utterly fantastic. The first and third hours, however, are devoid of anything beyond showy SFX razzledazzle. If you come an hour late and leave an hour early, you won't miss anything.
  51. AnthonyS.
    Dec 22, 2005
    10
    One of the best blockbusters i have seen in recent memory. i mean sure its flawed, but i was never bored through out the 3 hours, which says something. now only jackson did a tighter edit, then we have a true action masterpiece!
  52. IGiveUp
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    I give up. I truly do. The professional critics had to be bought and paid to give the fabulous reviews they gave. Let me set the record straight. This is a total bomb. A remake with heart and soul. There is little if any meaningful dialogue and the entire movie is without substance. Jack Black is simply awful. Adrian Brody is totally miscast. As for the story it unravels way too long and I give up. I truly do. The professional critics had to be bought and paid to give the fabulous reviews they gave. Let me set the record straight. This is a total bomb. A remake with heart and soul. There is little if any meaningful dialogue and the entire movie is without substance. Jack Black is simply awful. Adrian Brody is totally miscast. As for the story it unravels way too long and is quite frankly boring. There is no suspense as we all know the story. And how was KONG the only gorilla on the island when every other species was tenfold. Does it make sense that KONG the master of the island and the only one with intelligence was the last of his species. And how did the natives build the great wall without being eaten alive? And since the natives sacrificed women to KONG to be eaten how come they did nothing to save him when he was knocked out by the mildest form of anesthesia from one small bottle of chloroform in a wide open environment. It wouldn't put us to sleep let alone a 25 foot 4 ton gorilla. As for the small damaged ship and taking KONG back to NYC without him destroying the ship, well pehaps he took in the rays while laying on a chaise lounge with hot babe Naomi Watts by his side? This story was absolutely preposterous. You would have to have the brain of an amoeba to believe any of this crap. Avoid this turkey at all costs. Gobble -Gobble. Expand
  53. BillS.
    Dec 20, 2005
    10
    Best movie ever made. Let me go down in history as being the fist to have said this. This is one of cinema's oldest stories and PeterJackson's retelling of it is virtually flawless. Seeing it on the big screen is an epic experience that even Lucas' recent Star Wars films could not rival.
  54. ET
    Dec 30, 2005
    2
    This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the above, which is why it lasts 3 hours. This movie shows the worst of human nature, up close and personal, repeatedly, over, and over again. Peter Jackson This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the above, which is why it lasts 3 hours. This movie shows the worst of human nature, up close and personal, repeatedly, over, and over again. Peter Jackson seems to have a penchant for extended repetition. I can't rate it a '0' because I stayed the whole way through. It was reasonably well produced. Naomi Watts is easy on the eyes. If it had been tightened up a I could have seen rating it a 7 or 8. A *LOT*, I say. But we all know editing is the hardest part, and if people are going to see it anyway, why bother? Spoiler: In the end, Naomi loses the hairy flare-nosed chimp and ends up with the hairy flare-nosed chump. Ta-da. Expand
  55. PinkRose
    Jan 11, 2006
    10
    The best I saw last 2005, and I bet many envy this movie for its quality, I can read that.
  56. RichardE.
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was simply awful. The directing was some of the worst I have ever seen. And the dialogue was awful too and made no sense. Add to this the film being I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was simply awful. The directing was some of the worst I have ever seen. And the dialogue was awful too and made no sense. Add to this the film being about twice as long as it should and it all adds up to one big mess. The story of Beauty and the Beast has been told many times. Peter Jackson has not done anything worthy of two hundred million dollars of wasted money. This is as bad a film that I have seen in a long long time. The movie isn't even out two weeks and the theaters are half full. It is a disaster at the box office despite the hoopla by idiots who act as if this is an original idea. Expand
  57. LuisC.
    Jan 10, 2006
    10
    Funny, goood, Amazing!, very enjoyable to be a fantastic film, made me feel all kind of emotions.
  58. Duncan
    Jan 13, 2006
    9
    Impressive and gripping, cgi not always on the spot and probably a tad too long.
  59. GamhaG.
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    The Incredible picture of the year 2005, I like it a lot.
  60. Criticexpert
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    After Brokeback Mountain this is the Best !, Magnificent, Colossal.
  61. 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.
  62. perryb
    Jan 10, 2006
    3
    I guess that if you give an infinite number of nerds an infinite number of computer graphics workstations then this is the best that can be hoped for - a film that only a fan boy can love.
  63. Rickie
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Remember the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS? Well, KING KONG is AS BAD AS IT GETS! This was one long drawnout farce of a flick. Peter Jackson should be ashamed. No acting, no directing, no dialogue and just plain out STUPID!
  64. VinceM.
    Jan 1, 2006
    10
    In my opinion Peter Jackson is one of the best directors of our time, this movie is one of the best of the year, a little long but you couldn't tell his version of this story one and half hours
  65. ROSEOFEnsenada
    Jan 2, 2006
    10
    Only one word... Excelent, poor of those who can not enjoy fantasy movies, only want see wars, please, change the world!, 10.
  66. StephanieD.
    Jan 20, 2006
    10
    I loved this film, it was great. All the way through i didnt know what to expect and the effects were brill!!! i am definatly getting it on dvd when it comes out, this had something foe everyone and was one of the best films of the year, and the cast were great. Defiantly a must see, and i would see it again and again!!!
  67. DaveC.
    Jan 3, 2006
    8
    I find it hilarious that people are giving KING KONG bad reviews based on plausibility!!?? This was supposed to be big, dumb, and fun. Did you all miss the first two versions? Were you expecting a Woody Allen or Fellini film?? This was Peter Friggin Jackson doing King Kong!! You guys sound so stupid saying things like, "the T-Rex fight was so unrealistic". Of course it was!! LOL! Or, "how I find it hilarious that people are giving KING KONG bad reviews based on plausibility!!?? This was supposed to be big, dumb, and fun. Did you all miss the first two versions? Were you expecting a Woody Allen or Fellini film?? This was Peter Friggin Jackson doing King Kong!! You guys sound so stupid saying things like, "the T-Rex fight was so unrealistic". Of course it was!! LOL! Or, "how did they get him to New York"? Who gives a crap!? It's a MOVIE about a 4 ton gorilla!! Go with it. Have some fun. It isn't "Sideways" for godsakes(totally overrated crap BTW). I also love the criticism that "it was too long". I guess this is a bad thing in the year 2006. I guess people are just too busy these days to sit in a movie and just ENJOY themselves? How silly. Kong rocked and was the most fun I've ever had in a theater. A total blast! Expand
  68. AndyP.
    Jan 3, 2006
    1
    I guess Charles you have to be about 12 years old or else you would not have written the ridiculous review in which you gave this trash a perfect ten? You're excused. Ann loved Kong the way we love our dogs. After all he saved her life on more than one occassion, so wouldn't you too? So what's your point? Did she protest to anyone about bringing him back to NY to face his I guess Charles you have to be about 12 years old or else you would not have written the ridiculous review in which you gave this trash a perfect ten? You're excused. Ann loved Kong the way we love our dogs. After all he saved her life on more than one occassion, so wouldn't you too? So what's your point? Did she protest to anyone about bringing him back to NY to face his certain death? NO! Why? Because then it wouldn't be the rip off of the 19311 movie which was great. The acting with all due respect was wooden and superficial. There was no chemistry between Naomi and Adrian. Jack Black better stick to the School Of Rock as he was miscast here. The directing was terrible and the script was lame. Unless you care to explain away all of the inconsistencies in the story? Not a single one of you has attempted to do that because you know it would be impossible to do. The special effects were what they are but was there any new idea seen? No. This was just a video game for youngsters with ADD. If it entertained you that's great. Now the proof that this movie is a turkey is that after two weeks it has lost its number one ranking at the box office. This is from a movie that the critics who were bought and paid for raved about. Obviously word of mouth that this is an awful piece of work has spread on the street. How can this film be out of number one in less than three weeks? And it was replaced by a cartoon that has been out longer than this has. Peter Jackson got a free pass and has now joined George Lucas as a one dimensional character himself. All in all King Kong was terrible and is definitely not worth the price of admission. Avoid. Expand
  69. AoifeG.
    Jan 3, 2006
    8
    Overall-Very good. For me there were three main problems... no.1- It really dragged on at the start it took too long to get into the actual story. no.2-When Carl was showing his discovery to everyone back in America he didn't bother telling them about the dinosours. In my opinion dinosours are more important about a giant ape.
  70. I'mSorryMsJackson
    Jan 3, 2006
    5
    Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and where I lost a lot of weight. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and where I lost a lot of weight. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, whereupon I was released under strict supervision. The actors were often unable to understand my various grunts, but I felt this created an exciting atmosphere on set, one where noone knew what they were doing. I also tended to throw the camera around when I got bored, but I think this adds to the film's dynamism. It is a shame that I accidentally urinated on the motion control rig, because it created a constant crane loop, sorry about this. Unfortunately the editing room was too small to contain my monkey vitality and we lost one editor cos I chewed on his nose and bashed on his ballsarea. This may have given the film an irregular tempo, but one I'm sure hairy animals will enjoy. On a personal note, I chose to keep the movie long to reproduce how I felt when I was caged in downtown Auckland. There were a few regrettable incidents, like when I threw Jack Black cos I mistook him for a log, but my only real regret is there hadn't been such a debilitating shortage of bananas when we wrote the script. Expand
  71. JeffH.
    Jan 4, 2006
    5
    Entertaining, but not even close to the hype. Naomi Watts was good, but the extremely fake dinosaur scenes ruined the movie, and there were a lot of them. And there were truly bizarre moments, particularly when Naomi Watts starts juggling and doing acrobatic stunts for Kong. Yeah, that's believable.
  72. EmW
    Jan 5, 2006
    10
    I was really blown away by this!!! Just... WOW!!! I haven't seen a movie this entertaining for me except the Lord of the Rings movies! This film had some of the greatest special effects I have ever seen, and the acting between the two leads was fantastic! (I loved Jack Black aswell) But people. . .Boring?. .Too long?. . .You have got to be kidding me! Don't people enjoy movies I was really blown away by this!!! Just... WOW!!! I haven't seen a movie this entertaining for me except the Lord of the Rings movies! This film had some of the greatest special effects I have ever seen, and the acting between the two leads was fantastic! (I loved Jack Black aswell) But people. . .Boring?. .Too long?. . .You have got to be kidding me! Don't people enjoy movies these days! They were the quickest and most fun 3 hours I have ever spent at the cinema, yeah so what the first hour had no Kong, but it's called telling the story and if taking it back to that time in the 1930's (how it was in the original film) isn't respectful to the original and doesn't show dedication to the craft. . . then pigs fly. Unrealistic? COME ON!!! Was Lord of the Rings realistic??? Hmmm. . . then what about Harry Potter? The Chronicles of Narnia anyone? The Descent? Spiderman? Dont get me wrong, their all great films, though unrealistic, but who cares! It's called E.N.T.E.R.T.A.I.N.M.E.N.T and nothing has to make sense in films thats the beauty of films in gerneral and the freedom you get with making them. Why can't King Kong fight 3 T-Rex's?! This idea was used to convey the strength of Kong and the lengths he would go to in order to keep his beloved safe. It seems to me that these days people lack imagination! It's not meant to be very tangible! LOL! Hey, it's a good film if YOU enjoyed it. I even recommended it to one of my good friends and she LOVED it as much as me!! The relationship between King Kong and Ann was lovely and very romantic!!! (The Central Park scene especially!!) King was such a dreamboat of an ape!! You could definitley tell that she felt the same way and that no male would ever make such an impression on her as Kong has, she needs him and likewise. You knew that she would have chosen Kong if she had the choice, compared to Jack Driscoll. I wish guys would protect me like that (if ever i was in danger, etc!) But he wasn't just protective, he was also faithful to her! He searched for her when he escaped from the chains in New York And that sunset scene when he patted his chest like Ann did earlier with him, brought tears to my eyes. "Beautiful" says Ann, I could'nt of put it better myself. :) Expand
  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. Elliott
    Jan 7, 2006
    10
    People who are commenting on the plausibility of King Kong are bafoons. This movie stays so true to the original story while also expanding on it and bringing it to life in the new millennium. This movie is outstanding, definitely the best big-budget film of the year. People who give something like this a zero must be working on a negative scale. King Kong is fantastic, simply stunning.
  75. HoobyDooby
    Jan 8, 2006
    2
    This movie had me completely bored. First off: there's no likeable characters. The Jack Black character gives you the impression that he's insane, like in the scenes where they're running from dinosaurs and he's just sitting their filming it. You don't feel much affection for Kong (unlike the original). He doesn't show that much emotion. And the Naomi Watts This movie had me completely bored. First off: there's no likeable characters. The Jack Black character gives you the impression that he's insane, like in the scenes where they're running from dinosaurs and he's just sitting their filming it. You don't feel much affection for Kong (unlike the original). He doesn't show that much emotion. And the Naomi Watts character comes off as insane, as she professes to everyone that she LOVES the monkey. When you are in LOVE with a thousand-pound gorilla, people are not going to like your character. So, basically, what we got here is no likeably characters in a story we've heard thousands of times before. If it wasn't for the $200 million is special effects, I would give this a zero. Collapse
  76. Alice
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Most of this film belongs on the floor after being edited. The writing is awful and the story convoluted. Contrary to what others have said, this version of Kong loosely follows the original. The dialogue and the action scenes make no sense. The conflicts on Skull Island are illogical and even if we want to suspend all belief it still is comical in nature. About the only think this flick Most of this film belongs on the floor after being edited. The writing is awful and the story convoluted. Contrary to what others have said, this version of Kong loosely follows the original. The dialogue and the action scenes make no sense. The conflicts on Skull Island are illogical and even if we want to suspend all belief it still is comical in nature. About the only think this flick is good for is a video game with its flashing lights and bells. Jackson bombed. Expand
  77. Hassan
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Horrendous and a total waste of 200m. This was a joke. The audience started walking out in the middle. Bad script, bad actoring, and awful directing. Jackson is one trick wonder.
  78. Paul
    Jan 9, 2006
    8
    This movie was definitely worth the watch. My only complaint was that it was too long. King Kong looked incredibly real and the actors did a pretty good job. The action scenes were incredible, especially the one with Kong vs. the T Rex (in the vines!!!) There are too many people giving it a 10 because they like it or a 0 because they don't. Well, it's somewhere in between. This movie was definitely worth the watch. My only complaint was that it was too long. King Kong looked incredibly real and the actors did a pretty good job. The action scenes were incredible, especially the one with Kong vs. the T Rex (in the vines!!!) There are too many people giving it a 10 because they like it or a 0 because they don't. Well, it's somewhere in between. People should start to rate fairly. Anyways, go see the movie. It's one that you'll appreciate more on the big screen. Just be sure your seats are comfortable before the show starts. Expand
  79. MattiÄ.
    Jan 9, 2006
    3
    This was worse than I thought. The trip in the Skull Iland was very good part of the movie. But all other things were so trash.
  80. HerschelW.
    Feb 6, 2006
    0
    This movie was terrible. A waste of time and money. The screenplay was idiotic. The acting was even worse with Jack Black totally miscast. He is one dimensional and did not fit the role. CGI was okay but not anything spectacular. Adrian Brody did not fit as the hero. Jackson really made an iferrior film that is way too long. The depression had nothing to do with the original Kong and was This movie was terrible. A waste of time and money. The screenplay was idiotic. The acting was even worse with Jack Black totally miscast. He is one dimensional and did not fit the role. CGI was okay but not anything spectacular. Adrian Brody did not fit as the hero. Jackson really made an iferrior film that is way too long. The depression had nothing to do with the original Kong and was just wasted filler. The Skull Island action scenes were awful and made no sense. Mutant bugs? C'mon give me a break. Where did the natives disappear too and how did their great Wall protect them? Ridiculous plot. Just a poor remake of Jurassic Park. Avoid. Expand
  81. SamX.
    Apr 1, 2006
    4
    A valiant effort by Peter Jackson but the idea just doesn't wash with me. I would be rating it 10/10 if it wasn't for it's monotony and slowness. The film should've been shortened by an hour. Ann Darrow's neck should've snapped three seconds after being waved around by the enormous CGI monstrocity, but instead her hair stayed in place and her dress was still A valiant effort by Peter Jackson but the idea just doesn't wash with me. I would be rating it 10/10 if it wasn't for it's monotony and slowness. The film should've been shortened by an hour. Ann Darrow's neck should've snapped three seconds after being waved around by the enormous CGI monstrocity, but instead her hair stayed in place and her dress was still clean by the end of the movie. The 1933 version seems more realistic than this. Expand
  82. 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
  83. 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.
  84. EdwinK.
    Apr 7, 2006
    4
    Did Peter make this movie just for himself and his children??? Highly unrealistic, overdone, way too long, bad acting, bad plots, fortunately I could stop my rented copy when it all became too much. Sad to see such stuff come out of PJ's hand. Couldn't do it without Tolkien?
  85. FrancoH.
    Aug 2, 2006
    10
    King Kong, bitches! Peter Jackson does it once again!
  86. AditiT.
    Aug 30, 2006
    7
    it is a nice movie but still some suspence should also be there.
  87. NickA.
    Oct 30, 2007
    9
    I
  88. 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.
  89. Andiev
    Jul 2, 2007
    8
    the movie was pretty good, i did cry a little at the end, when king kong fell off the empire state building, the actors and actresses were very skilled, naomi watts was excellent, the jungle insects scared me and i think my money didn't completely go to waste. peter jackson is an amazing director.
  90. ShaneB.
    Jan 12, 2008
    8
    This is my review of King Kong. Pretty much, it's about Ann Darrow, a woman who, after losing her job in 1933, is offered to be in a movie by a rebellious filmmaker, named Carl Denham, who trying to make a movie. They go on a ship and end up at skull island, where Ann is sacrificed to the ape Kong. Now the only reason i wanted to see this movie was because it was directed by Peter This is my review of King Kong. Pretty much, it's about Ann Darrow, a woman who, after losing her job in 1933, is offered to be in a movie by a rebellious filmmaker, named Carl Denham, who trying to make a movie. They go on a ship and end up at skull island, where Ann is sacrificed to the ape Kong. Now the only reason i wanted to see this movie was because it was directed by Peter Jackson. So, all in all, it was one of the best movies of 2005. the acting was okay, the action was spectacular. Yet the special effects was mixed. Some effects were awesome, like Kong. Yet others were no good at all. So this is a good film to see. I give Kong 2005 an 8/10. Expand
  91. KevinP.
    Dec 12, 2005
    8
    Amber A. writes: 'Some scenes on the Island were a little too reminiscent of Jurassic Park.' Um, I hope she understands that Jurassic Park borrowed from King Kong, not the other way around. But I suppose that's a problem when showing one of the most classic films of all time to a new audience, one that is much younger and less informed. The film does not tread much new Amber A. writes: 'Some scenes on the Island were a little too reminiscent of Jurassic Park.' Um, I hope she understands that Jurassic Park borrowed from King Kong, not the other way around. But I suppose that's a problem when showing one of the most classic films of all time to a new audience, one that is much younger and less informed. The film does not tread much new ground - it's a faithful, and intentionally so, remake of the original (let's not think of the first remake, shall we?). Updated with familiar faces and a stunning marriage of live-action and CGI, this Kong allows for more emotional connections between the audience and the ape. Expand
  92. EddieB.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    King Kong is the best film I've seen all year. Amazing action sequences, a great story with heart, and brilliant special effects make this film a must-see for anyone. I hear the game's not too shabby either--might have to check that out!
  93. EricW.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Simply wonderful.
  94. PatrickW.
    Dec 15, 2005
    9
    I am unable to understand the low scores people must have decided to hate it before seeing it!!!
  95. E.B.
    Dec 16, 2005
    9
    Peter Jackson is becoming known for his 3 hour movies...which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it.
  96. PaulH.
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    Please tell me I was dreaming. This is so bad that I can't even find the right words to condem it. The first hour was slow and boring and did nothing in developing the characters. The second hour bordered on ridiculous with a remake of Jurassic Park. As for the destruction of NY it was laughable. I especially loved the last scene with Naomi Watts in the middle of winter standing with Please tell me I was dreaming. This is so bad that I can't even find the right words to condem it. The first hour was slow and boring and did nothing in developing the characters. The second hour bordered on ridiculous with a remake of Jurassic Park. As for the destruction of NY it was laughable. I especially loved the last scene with Naomi Watts in the middle of winter standing with high heels in a spring dress at the very top of the crown on the Empire State Buidling on her toes with Adrian Brody. One gust of wind and the movie would have had a realistic ending as both would have been blown away. I think Kong committed suicide because he was embarrassed by this sorry excuse for a motion picture. Awful. Expand
  97. PDWrite
    Dec 17, 2005
    4
    Die, Kong, Die! When he's passing out on the island I thought, my god, are we going to have to go through this again? But I was wrong--it seemed like we had to go through the same mournful, incredibly slooooowww gazes another ten times! Her face is great, his face is great, the expressions are wonderful--but too long, and Jackson doesn't seem to even know what dialogue is. I was Die, Kong, Die! When he's passing out on the island I thought, my god, are we going to have to go through this again? But I was wrong--it seemed like we had to go through the same mournful, incredibly slooooowww gazes another ten times! Her face is great, his face is great, the expressions are wonderful--but too long, and Jackson doesn't seem to even know what dialogue is. I was entertained, but please, go back to elf-talk or something. Plus, I still want to punch Adrian Brody in the nose as much as Halle Berry did at the oscars. Expand
  98. Drtim
    Dec 18, 2005
    10
    Remarkable. Unspoken love, maternal reverie, empathic connectedness; the relationship between the Naomi Watts characterand the digital ape/Andy Serkis is the transcendent heart of this film. In tapping something deeply innate it tolls for us all.
  99. SteveE.
    Dec 18, 2005
    10
    This movie is the best thing ever set to celluloid. Phenomenal and beautiful, this film is definitly the best film of the year. Anyone who doesn't like it has no soul.
  100. Sharif
    Dec 19, 2005
    9
    Very Good movie, I have no complaints about the length of the movie, since i liked it i dont see why i should'nt get more of what i like and make the most of my money, and it also sets the flow of the movie. while watching felt sorry for Mr. Kong all the while telling him in my head Yeah budy women do that to you, they mess up your head and that is the end result.
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.