King Kong

User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1347 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. 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.
  2. 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
  3. May 12, 2016
    9
    Epic movie! It's one of those wonderful, unforgettable stories, and this version's just epic!

    Watch it online for free: http://www.watchfree.to/watch-520-King-Kong-movie-online-free-putlocker.html
  4. Apr 12, 2016
    6
    Both incredibly racist and sexist, King Kong is a classic tale that so overlong it truly hurts. While entertaining and well acted, the film could have stood to be far shorter. Fortunately, it packs its overstuffed runtime with entertaining sequences and spectacular special effects. Naomi Watts is fantastic here and brings raw emotion to the role as the white woman whose beauty andBoth incredibly racist and sexist, King Kong is a classic tale that so overlong it truly hurts. While entertaining and well acted, the film could have stood to be far shorter. Fortunately, it packs its overstuffed runtime with entertaining sequences and spectacular special effects. Naomi Watts is fantastic here and brings raw emotion to the role as the white woman whose beauty and whiteness tames the savage black man. While the overt racism inherent in the story suffocates it pretty good, racist films can still be quite good and King Kong is a perfect example of this. There is a seriously epic feel to the film and it is well handled by Jackson who knows his way around an epic. If the film was shorter, then the overall film would be far more enjoyable because the extravagant set pieces and scenes pack the right amount of power, but the filler winds up stunting that excitement. Heck, the film could keep all the scenes, but they could be just a touch shorter. Yet, the pay off was quite solid admittedly. Appropriately emotional and stirring, the ending really rips your heart out and makes you hate the people who did this to Kong. Overall, an appropriately epic blockbuster that entertains and thrills, but packed too much into just one film. Expand
  5. Apr 6, 2016
    9
    Among the reasons "King Kong" - the old 100-minute black-and-white version, that is - has retained its appeal over the years is that it reminds audiences of the do-it-yourself, seat-of-the-pants ethic of early motion pictures. In 1933, when RKO released it, sound film was in its infancy, and film itself was in the midst of a coltish, irrepressible adolescence. Merian C. Cooper and ErnestAmong the reasons "King Kong" - the old 100-minute black-and-white version, that is - has retained its appeal over the years is that it reminds audiences of the do-it-yourself, seat-of-the-pants ethic of early motion pictures. In 1933, when RKO released it, sound film was in its infancy, and film itself was in the midst of a coltish, irrepressible adolescence. Merian C. Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack, who directed the first "Kong," understood the alchemical convergence of gimmickry and sublimity that lay at the heart of the medium's unrivaled potential to generate spectacle and sensation.

    That potential still exists, but it may be harder to find these days, given how much bigger and more self-important movies have become. In his gargantuan, mightily entertaining remake, "King Kong," Peter Jackson tries to pay homage to the original even as he labors to surpass it. The sheer audacious novelty of the first "King Kong" is not something that can be replicated, but in throwing every available imaginative and technological resource into the effort, Mr. Jackson comes pretty close.

    The threshold of sensation has risen drastically since the 30's, when movies were still associated with older, somewhat disreputable forms of popular culture. Unlike the 1976 remake, which tried to drag the story into the corporate present, Mr. Jackson's version returns it to the Great Depression, reminding us that the road to the multiplex stretches back through the music halls and burlesque houses of those bygone days.

    Of course, this new "King Kong" (written by Mr. Jackson and his frequent collaborators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) cost more than $200 million to make and can hardly be called scruffy. It arrives burdened with impossible expectations and harassed by competition from all sides. The director, who not so long ago was making low-budget monster movies in his native New Zealand, clearly wants to hold onto the artisanal, eccentric spirit of the past - his own and that of the art form he loves. But at the same time he must live up to the success of his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and prove to a glutted, gluttonous audience that large-scale, effects-driven filmmaking is still capable of novelty, freshness and emotional impact.

    He succeeds through a combination of modesty and reckless glee, topping himself at every turn and reveling in his own showmanship. His "King Kong," though it has a few flourishes of tongue-in-cheek knowingness - including references to Cooper and Fay Wray and shots that directly quote the original - never feels self-conscious or arch. And though it presents the interspecies love story between Kong (Andy Serkis, who also plays a shipboard cook named Lumpy) and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) with touching sincerity, the picture wears its themes lightly, waving away the somber, allegorical sententiousness that too many blockbusters ("Lord of the Rings" included) rely upon to justify their exorbitant costs. The movie is, almost by definition, too much - too long, too big, too stuffed with characters and over-the-top set pieces - but it is animated by an impish, generous grace. Three hours in the dark with a giant, angry ape should leave you feeling battered and exhausted, but "King Kong" is as memorable for its sweetness as for its sensationalism.

    After setting a nostalgic mood with Art Deco titles and James Newton Howard's old-fashioned movie-palace overture, "King Kong" plunges into a New York of vaudeville houses, soup lines and Hooverville encampments. Ann, a winsome, wholesome hoofer, is performing in a threadbare revue that shuts down just as Carl Denham (Jack Black) loses the star of his next movie. Somehow, he entices not only Ann, but also her favorite playwright, the Barton Finkish Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), onto a rusty tub whose unsavory captain (Thomas Kretschmann) captures and transports exotic animals. Denham's plan is to take his film crew - which also includes his anxious assistant (Colin Hanks) and lantern-jawed star (Kyle Chandler) - to Skull Island, where they will discover Kong.

    The rapport between Ms. Watts and Mr. Serkis is extraordinary, even though it is mediated by fur, latex, optical illusions and complicated effects. Mr. Serkis, who also played Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, is redefining screen acting for the digital age, while Ms. Watts incarnates the glamour and emotional directness of classical Hollywood. Together they form one of the most unlikely and affecting screen couples since Anthony Quinn and Giulietta Masina did their beast and beauty act in "La Strada."

    The climax of "King Kong" - one of the most familiar sequences in movies, and one that never grows old - exemplifies both tendencies. It is shameless and exalted, absurd and sublime, vulgar and grand. It's what movies were made for.
    Expand
  6. Mar 21, 2016
    9
    One of, I believe, Peter Jackson's now underrated films, King Kong is a fantastic piece of film. Sure, it may hold quite a long run-time and slowish intro that may bore some people, but once the film gets going it kicks off with fantastic action scenes, tension filled moments and CGI that still holds up today. The performances in the movie are all fantastic, including Kong's motion captureOne of, I believe, Peter Jackson's now underrated films, King Kong is a fantastic piece of film. Sure, it may hold quite a long run-time and slowish intro that may bore some people, but once the film gets going it kicks off with fantastic action scenes, tension filled moments and CGI that still holds up today. The performances in the movie are all fantastic, including Kong's motion capture by Andy Serkis, and a beautiful score to top it off. It still remains to this day as one of my favourite movies of all time. Expand
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. Nov 27, 2015
    4
    Most of the movie is enjoyable.But the ending completely ruins the movie.I want a good ending.King Kong should not be killed.Thanks a lot universal you made the most overrated movie ever.
  10. Jul 30, 2015
    6
    While some special effects (excluding King Kong himself) are lazily unfinished and its pace can sometimes be problematic, "King Kong" is a solid update of the 1933's picture thanks to talented performances and enthralling direction.

    6.5/10
  11. 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.
  12. May 22, 2015
    6
    "King Kong" is a good movie, not great, not bad, but good. Which arguably makes it worth the watch, since there vary view things to complain about, but also because there is a lack of stuff to be excited about. I wish I could say that this movie was fantastic and you should go buy a copy, but you should only get this movie if your curious about, not if your looking for something to blow your mind.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Mar 11, 2015
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Depends on which cut.

    Director's cut where Kong shows some signs of life, they're about to finish him off, but Beauty jumps down on his belly from the top story of the building, and negotiates a reapproachment with the city, where Kong agrees to work in construction to pay off the damage.

    Then Kong and her human lover agree to a civilized duel. Kong suggests arm wrestling but the guy suggest a count contest to 2. Kong bangs two fists in the pavement, considered a tie. so Beauty becomes a Mormon and marries them both, and they take up residence back on the top floor and they all join the social circuit..

    Then Kong takes a dump in Times Square and is shipped by to Skullsville.

    That gets an 8, but if get the Beauty killed a beast line ... 3
    Expand
  16. Mar 11, 2015
    9
    King Kong is Peter Jackon's big, bold remake of the revered 1933 original. Getting off to a slow - though not uninteresting start, this movie really begins to shine once the Venture arrives at Skull Island, where Jackson and his team once again prove their spectacular prowess in the world of visual effects. The choreography and execution of the action scenes are nothing short of stunningKing Kong is Peter Jackon's big, bold remake of the revered 1933 original. Getting off to a slow - though not uninteresting start, this movie really begins to shine once the Venture arrives at Skull Island, where Jackson and his team once again prove their spectacular prowess in the world of visual effects. The choreography and execution of the action scenes are nothing short of stunning (particularly in the one involving Kong and 3 T-Rex, as well as another that can only be described as a bug-phobic's worst nightmare.) Kong succeeds on the emotional level as well, playing out the platonic love-story with surprising poignancy and depth. Expand
  17. 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)
  18. Dec 17, 2014
    10
    It is the unexplained feeling of watching King Kong . It is epic , a film that merges all of the seventh art styles . In my opinion the best ever made so far.
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. Jul 31, 2014
    10
    there are so many king Kong movies like example the one that started from 1933 But this one is so much better then the 1933 version. King Kong is stunning it has creativity, imagination and talent.When you see this for the 100th or a million times you can understand that there's so much love that a beast and a woman and thats the love that the story on itself. you cant just watch thisthere are so many king Kong movies like example the one that started from 1933 But this one is so much better then the 1933 version. King Kong is stunning it has creativity, imagination and talent.When you see this for the 100th or a million times you can understand that there's so much love that a beast and a woman and thats the love that the story on itself. you cant just watch this movie and skip the drama parts that watts love for the ape thats part of the passion and the story. You can understand that the love that a human and a animal thats part of kong's battle in the world. this movie would not be a huge hit if it wasn't for Peter Jackson even if he did not write the script it automatically it tells us he used his imagination in the screenplay or way it tells it adventure. Jackson its the new Steilberg he has a film makers eye with adventure, horror and its beautiful. Jackson has some movies that have a world of good imagination like the adventures of Titin. but there are some things wrong with his performance of directing like lord of the rings. Whats wrong with lord of the rings is its like a rush to the finish line. and we need to see it improve from Jackson thats the bad part of jackson that i dont like. kong is amazing movie. i hope theres king kong 2 Expand
  22. 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
  23. Apr 26, 2014
    10
    Great cast,amazing acting and absolutely wonderful graphics.The movie is long but we don't see the time pass because the movie is so awesome.There is so many action scenes and the dinosaurs were realistic.I didn't like the original but this one wow!
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. Sep 20, 2013
    9
    King Kong may not be as good as some of Peter Jackson's incredible works, but is still amazing. It requires patience to watch the whole movie, as it is very long, slow and progressive, but it's worth it if you sit through the whole thing. The camera-work is fantastic and captures moments brilliantly, and the music perfectly blends in with whichever scene/moment it is played in, especiallyKing Kong may not be as good as some of Peter Jackson's incredible works, but is still amazing. It requires patience to watch the whole movie, as it is very long, slow and progressive, but it's worth it if you sit through the whole thing. The camera-work is fantastic and captures moments brilliantly, and the music perfectly blends in with whichever scene/moment it is played in, especially when it is an emotional scene. This film isn't overly long and I don't understand why people complain about it's lengh, as it's a good thing that it's long, because it lets you think about whats happening and it lets you make the most of the moment; it's like a progressive rock song. The character building is superb and the acting is fantastic. The progressive feel to the film makes the finale all the more amazing, as the action, story and characters come together to make something spectacular, emotional and immensely gripping.

    King Kong is a brilliant blend of action, adventure, and suspence. It is the film equivalent of a fantastic progressive rock song. So I give this film a 94/100!
    Expand
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Apr 11, 2013
    10
    Visually impressive, nostalgic and epic. Peter Jackson's King Kong is a beautiful and terrific remake that, though long, doesn't feel as long as it actually is and is filled with well choreographed sequences and heart-felt moments. Always a pleasure to watch.
  32. Apr 8, 2013
    6
    many either love it or hate it....I found it way over serious at times for the material and the first hour just drags forever. The cast doesnt have that good chemistry and it looks like a lot of the actors spent a lot of time in from of a blue screen making funny faces. The middle hour is good but nothing really connects through out the movie and the cgi comes to the point where its toomany either love it or hate it....I found it way over serious at times for the material and the first hour just drags forever. The cast doesnt have that good chemistry and it looks like a lot of the actors spent a lot of time in from of a blue screen making funny faces. The middle hour is good but nothing really connects through out the movie and the cgi comes to the point where its too much. It is a challenging movie to make but its pretty flat most of the time. Expand
  33. 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.
  34. Mar 24, 2013
    8
    Very good special effects although the plot line could have used a bit more.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. Feb 3, 2013
    9
    esta es una entretenida sofocante y excitante película llena de actuaciones espectaculares y ni que decir de sus efectos esta es sin duda otra obra maestra de peter jackson
  38. 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.
  39. Dec 10, 2012
    6
    It's an awesome adventure speaking of special effects. The team around this movie created such a great world, all props go to the CGI team. But in other aspects, this movie is too long, the cast is only mediocre (Jack Black is bad) and it's got a ragged editing. The succeeding of scenes is often poor and so is the whole script. Nonetheless those things, I enjoyed the fantasy world reallyIt's an awesome adventure speaking of special effects. The team around this movie created such a great world, all props go to the CGI team. But in other aspects, this movie is too long, the cast is only mediocre (Jack Black is bad) and it's got a ragged editing. The succeeding of scenes is often poor and so is the whole script. Nonetheless those things, I enjoyed the fantasy world really much and it's an entertaining and cool picture. Expand
  40. 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.
  41. Nov 8, 2012
    10
    King Kong opens up quietly asking questions and provoking thoughts. It then entrances us by plucking us from our chairs and throwing us into a dazzling and breath-taking fantasy world created with some incredible special effects. To seal the deal, in its last hour, it grows close to our hearts and then floors us.
  42. 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.
  43. May 25, 2012
    10
    King Kong has very jaw dropping brawls with Kong. The story is everything that King Kong is and should be. Its a great remake and a very memorable story.
  44. 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.
  45. 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
  46. Mar 31, 2012
    10
    First off, this is a 9.5 out of 10. Effects are spectacular. To king kong, to environments, to dinosaurs, to epic airplane battles, this movies have awesome visual effects. Score is good, Acting well done, and story is good. Probably long and pulled on but still good. Overall, great movie. A great blockbuster.
  47. 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.
  48. 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'...
  49. Nov 20, 2011
    10
    I dont care what other people say. For me it is one of the best movies ever! The action and graphics are awesome! Its just so sad that King Kong has to die so tragicly... I cry everytime I see the ending.... And im boy but i dont care...
  50. Nov 11, 2011
    6
    I'm honestly not sure how to start this off. First of all, lets get negatives out the way as usual: at over 3 hours long, the film feels bloated and stuffed with a noisy barrage of action sequences. Many of the creatures devised throughout the film (such as the V-rex) seem to go by the theory that 'the bigger it is, the scarier'. The film makes attempts at this cinematic intensity; withI'm honestly not sure how to start this off. First of all, lets get negatives out the way as usual: at over 3 hours long, the film feels bloated and stuffed with a noisy barrage of action sequences. Many of the creatures devised throughout the film (such as the V-rex) seem to go by the theory that 'the bigger it is, the scarier'. The film makes attempts at this cinematic intensity; with varying degrees of success ranging from surprising to plain flat. The action scenes are often disjointed and feel as if they are all competing to see who can make the most thrilling scene. Anyhow, rant over. The visual effects are admittitly very stunning, though sometimes overused. The acting is mostly solid and the underlying story isn't too bad, although the second act seems a complete jumbled narrative mess.
    Overall, this is still a resonably made film that still manages to maintain its intensity and shock-and-awe moments when it needs to. Definately worth a look.
    Expand
  51. Nov 11, 2011
    10
    Saw this movie once again after a long time, and i still love it. Though better CGI will come in future years the emotions portrayed by kong will never fail to enthrall. Its a true masterpiece and the best kong movie made up-to date, this will always be in my list of all time greatest movies.
  52. Oct 9, 2011
    9
    It doesn't disappoint as a remake. Actually, Peter Jackson's vision of King Kong is more epic, passionate and unforgettable than the original.
  53. 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.
  54. 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
  55. Jul 29, 2011
    10
    Jackson's King Kong With Best THE BEST Action Sequences And Great Music By James Newton Howard It's Not A Film But An Anthology Of True Love.Great Film

    10/10
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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.
  59. Dec 15, 2010
    6
    king kong is the remake of the original movie. there is no novelity in the script. the movie is just a remake.
    execution is nice. enthralling and captivating. direction screenplay and technical values are the upper hand to the movie. casting is nice and production values are worthy. the final grade of the movie is B+
  60. 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.
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. EricK.
    May 11, 2008
    0
    A disgrace to the original, which is one of the greatest films of all time.
  65. 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
  66. NickA.
    Oct 30, 2007
    9
    I
  67. 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.
  68. 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.
  69. GregA.
    Aug 12, 2007
    9
    Just watched this on DVD last night and thought it was fantastic - only wished I had seen it on the big screen. Previous to that I was a bit wary of this film due to the length of it, but I was wrong, I didn't feel it was drawn out at all - you may question the slow bits with Naomi and Kong but without it the purpose to the movie would be lost. It is a couple years old now, but if Just watched this on DVD last night and thought it was fantastic - only wished I had seen it on the big screen. Previous to that I was a bit wary of this film due to the length of it, but I was wrong, I didn't feel it was drawn out at all - you may question the slow bits with Naomi and Kong but without it the purpose to the movie would be lost. It is a couple years old now, but if you haven't seen it and want to see some great special effects coupled with a solid storyline I highly recommend it. Expand
  70. AustinM.
    Aug 9, 2007
    10
    Kong's one the greatest movies ever, excellent special effects, I love every action scene in this movie. After those three hours, it felt like the movie was short, I know most people saw it's long, but I didn't, I wanted at least another half hour.
  71. MarkD
    Jul 12, 2007
    9
    I see views and ratings vary wildly for this movie. Some criticisms are just; it was a teeny bit too long and some of the action scenes were poorly done and unnecessary. I get the impression, though, that some people are carping and nit picking while choosing to ignore (or perhaps just not getting) the emotional and moral core at the heart of this movie. The key is in the very last line - I see views and ratings vary wildly for this movie. Some criticisms are just; it was a teeny bit too long and some of the action scenes were poorly done and unnecessary. I get the impression, though, that some people are carping and nit picking while choosing to ignore (or perhaps just not getting) the emotional and moral core at the heart of this movie. The key is in the very last line - and it's heartbreaking. If you don't get it I'm not going to explain it to you but to sum it up, this movie is both exciting and beautiful. This movie is Hollywood at it's very best. Expand
  72. 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.
  73. 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
  74. Soco
    Feb 28, 2007
    10
    Excellent movie. Very intense and thrilling.
  75. 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
  76. 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 ).
  77. MattO
    Jan 28, 2007
    10
    I hate to give it a 100% score, but to score it anything less would be wrong. What Peter Jackson was able to do with the Lord of the Rings books, he was able to do with an undisputed movie classic. Bringing to light the beauty, wonder, power, and the "Beast" or the story do to a more modern interpretation, Jackson truly captured the true story of what King Kong was about. This beast of I hate to give it a 100% score, but to score it anything less would be wrong. What Peter Jackson was able to do with the Lord of the Rings books, he was able to do with an undisputed movie classic. Bringing to light the beauty, wonder, power, and the "Beast" or the story do to a more modern interpretation, Jackson truly captured the true story of what King Kong was about. This beast of brute strength that has seen only conflict and turmoil is able to be "handled" by Watts character who provides him the meaning of being loved or wanted. And in the same concept Kong was able to provide Namoni's character with something she always wanted but never have, love, a love that would always be there, and die for her. And that is what the original film tried to show, the story how a power, savage force can be swooned by love and beauty. And that is what Peter Jackson was able to do better then what the original could. Great movie for couple to do see. Expand
  78. 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
  79. KevinM.
    Dec 6, 2006
    9
    This was by far the best version of Kong that I have seen. Jack Black was great and after watching the film couldn't pick a better person for that role. Great flick and a great job by the crew.
  80. rostokov
    Oct 19, 2006
    4
    Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and grew a beard. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, whereupon I was Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and grew a beard. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, whereupon I was released under strict supervision. The actors were often unable to understand my various grunts, but I felt this created and exciting atmosphere on set, one where no one knew what they were doing. I also tended to throw the camera around when I got bored, but I think this adds to the film's dynamism. It is a shame that I accidentally urinated on the motion control rig, because it created a constant crane loop, sorry about this. Unfortunately the editing room was too small to contain my monkey vitality and we lost one editor cos I chewed on his nose and bashed on his ballsarea. This may have given the film an irregular tempo, but one I'm sure hairy animals will enjoy. On a personal note, I chose to keep the movie long to reproduce how I felt when I was caged in downtown Auckland. There were a few regrettable incidents, like when I threw Jack Black cos I mistook him for a log, but my only real regret is there hadn't been such a debilitating shortage of bananas when we wrote the script. Expand
  81. DouglasK
    Oct 18, 2006
    10
    A Terrific film.
  82. DavidM
    Oct 7, 2006
    10
    My jaw still remains open, my eyes still wet with tears. You can choose to take it literally, or symbolic, either way...magnificent.
  83. AditiT.
    Aug 30, 2006
    7
    it is a nice movie but still some suspence should also be there.
  84. FrancoH.
    Aug 2, 2006
    10
    King Kong, bitches! Peter Jackson does it once again!
  85. 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.
  86. SamM.
    May 24, 2006
    10
    Very nice storyline and CGI interaction better then its original counterpart of old.
  87. ChristineT.
    May 22, 2006
    10
    Awesome movie! I love the love story coz it felt deep. Also, I'm a romantic at heart.
  88. 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
  89. jskim
    May 8, 2006
    10
    This is a truly great movie...so simple, but so effective...it's not complicated - just a tragic story that holds you emotionally and visually from beginning to end. king kong proves that a movie doesn't have to be comlex to keep your attention. it is a perfect update of the original...it keeps everything that was good about the original and improves upon everything else. anyone This is a truly great movie...so simple, but so effective...it's not complicated - just a tragic story that holds you emotionally and visually from beginning to end. king kong proves that a movie doesn't have to be comlex to keep your attention. it is a perfect update of the original...it keeps everything that was good about the original and improves upon everything else. anyone who says the special effects are over-done is a moron...just because there are a lot of special effects doesn't mean they're over-done...if the effects are done right, you can have a lot without it being forced. this is a perfect example of how you use special effects to add to the movie rather than just cramming them in because you can...the emotions displayed by kong really grab you...any movie that makes you feel strongly for a computer generated gorilla is already a huge accomplishment... peter jackson is hands down the best director working right now...he can pull off a big special effects blockbuster without letting the effects overpower the story. thank you peter jackson for being such a skillfull director who hasn't forgotten that the most important part of a movie is its heart. Expand
  90. 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
  91. LeeC.
    May 5, 2006
    8
    Extremely Great Movie.
  92. LeeC.
    May 5, 2006
    8
    Extremely Great Movie.
  93. JulienC.
    Apr 28, 2006
    5
    King Kong is the perfect representation of how dry hollywood is becoming: not that it's good or bad, it's neutral - it's like a well oiled machine that would produce air, like a recipe that produces water: everything follows the hollywood path that secures a certain number of dollars for the shareholders. the only thing that is good in this movie is what the artists have King Kong is the perfect representation of how dry hollywood is becoming: not that it's good or bad, it's neutral - it's like a well oiled machine that would produce air, like a recipe that produces water: everything follows the hollywood path that secures a certain number of dollars for the shareholders. the only thing that is good in this movie is what the artists have come up with: environments notably. special effects are good of course but is this a surprise? this movie is boring as hell until they meet with the natives. the cast is over-acting all movie long, only the writer is OK. i hope the guys who made this movie give this comment a read: PLEASE stop making safe movies, take some risks; work on the actors' lines deeper, produce the emotion don't just buy it... Expand
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. DaleW.
    Apr 11, 2006
    3
    What a disappointment - 30 minutes just to get on the boat, and an hour before Kong first appears - and special effects that were surpassed by Jurassic Park well over a decade ago. Peter Jackson owes me three hours of my life back.
  97. DeanS.
    Apr 9, 2006
    1
    Stick to Rings . . .not Kings. My wife and I were expecting a decent movie. It was appalling (thank you Simon!). Effects were 'blue screen' corny, the stunt 'rag doll' being thrown around for the blonde was almost comedic. Made our top 10 Worst Ever Movie list!
  98. JaredC.
    Apr 7, 2006
    10
    This movie is stellar in every way. If they had an award for biggest "badass of the year" other than me, Kong would definitely win. Awesome Movie!
  99. DanielS
    Apr 7, 2006
    0
    I don't understand how people liked this movie. It was boring and stupid. Just when you thought it was time for a fight scene to end, it went for another 20 minutes. It was terrible and I like fight scenes.
  100. 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?
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.