Metascore
81

Universal acclaim - based on 39 Critics What's this?

User Score
7.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1220 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Director Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings trilogy) helms the dramatic adventure King Kong, bringing his sweeping cinematic vision to the iconic story of the gigantic ape captured in the wild and brought to civilization where he meets his tragic fate. (Universal Studios)
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 32 out of 39
  2. Negative: 1 out of 39
  1. 100
    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.
  2. 100
    But overall, Jackson goes for the magic by sidestepping every error of judgment and failure of imagination that brought the ponderous 1976 remake thudding to Earth before Kong ever did. He delivers three solid hours of breathless, enchanting entertainment.
  3. 100
    Here is the jaw-dropping, eye-popping, heart-stopping movie epic we've been waiting for all year.
  4. The $200 million result is an irresistibly entertaining, if grandiose, saga of doomed love and directorial hubris.
  5. 83
    Kong is brilliant in many, many places. But it overwhelms its own best qualities with its sheer, punishing size. It is, literally, too much of a good thing.
  6. 75
    King Kong makes clear that Jackson has no contemporary peer when it comes to outsized, transporting fantasies that enchant in an era when special effects have become white noise.
  7. On its own terms, the film is overlong, repetitive and lacks impact. Even if this were the first gorilla-in-love movie ever made, audiences would come away vaguely dissatisfied, suspecting there was an intriguing idea buried somewhere in here, but it didn't quite come off.

See all 39 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. FenceSitter
    Dec 17, 2005
    10
    Highly enjoyable, great performance from Andy Serkis.
  2. John
    Jan 8, 2006
    10
    This is an unbelievable movie on nearly every conceivable level. Furthermore, I am aghast at how many people have rated this a zero. Have the This is an unbelievable movie on nearly every conceivable level. Furthermore, I am aghast at how many people have rated this a zero. Have the seen the original?!? Roger Ebert was right in saying that it is "like the flowering of all the possibilities in the original classic film." I want to see it again. Expand
  3. 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 KongsKing 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. Collapse
  4. J.Sallister
    Dec 18, 2005
    8
    Takes an already great movie and makes it better. Many people fail to see this is a remake of a 1930s film, and is not posed to be realistic. Takes an already great movie and makes it better. Many people fail to see this is a remake of a 1930s film, and is not posed to be realistic. Someone rated this movie poorly because dinosaurs have not existed for over 300 million years and the next person seems to think that this movie is a knockoff of Jurassic Park. People know before they see the film tthat it is a 3 hour movie and it includes a non-existant gorilla. Others like, Daniel T claim that this mega-budget remake of a classic that is (in itself an indication of the banal recycling endemic of current cinema), although Peter Jackson presented countless renditions of the classic to Universal before he was green-lighted, and others may not know that this is an homage and not an original picture, and probably is not meant to be. This movie delivers everything you'd wanna see in a film, some parts may be dragged out, but does not diminish the overall quality of the flick. Too many complain that the movie is unrealistic in every way, everyone knows that before they see the movie, stop crying. The racists (natives) are cannibals (people who eat people), and T-Rex's do not live on the coast, and the wall obviously could not contain Kong. Most people should see the original before they post a review. Expand
  5. JohntheCritic
    Dec 18, 2005
    6
    The movie was slow. Nice special effects. Acting ok to good. Plot had elements that could have been better developed to have a more The movie was slow. Nice special effects. Acting ok to good. Plot had elements that could have been better developed to have a more interesting story especially with the long length of the film. On my personal rating system it was a Expand
  6. ScottE.
    Dec 26, 2005
    3
    I am so embarrassed to admit that I took my relatives to see this movie. Not only was it just laughably bad throughout the first hour, I I am so embarrassed to admit that I took my relatives to see this movie. Not only was it just laughably bad throughout the first hour, I can't say that it got any better as the audience was introduced to Act II at "Skull Island." With such lame acting and such horrible casting of Adrien Brody & Jack Black, I started to glance at my watch repeatedly, wondering if it would get any better anytime soon. I have to admit that the dinosaur battles were viscerally exciting, but every other scene on the island seemed insulting. The part with the bugs was especially repulsive and head-scratchingly unnecessary. Why were we forced to see such an unoriginal movie? Only after the implausible transfer of Kong to New York does this movie actually pick up pace and start to redeem itself. At that point, it's too little, too late. Everyone in the theater was captivated by the Empire State Building sequence but not much else. Bottom Line: The movie dragged when Kong/Watts were not in the scene. No amount of CGI can save this self-indulgent film, no matter how much the critics praise this superficially bloated bust of a remake. Expand
  7. JohnH.
    Dec 14, 2005
    0
    This is just bad. Mr. Jackson has failed us again.

See all 619 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Ranked: Best and Worst Remakes of the Past Decade

    Ranked: Best and Worst Remakes of the Past Decade Image
    Published: August 16, 2011
    This Friday brings remakes of "Conan the Barbarian" and "Fright Night" to theaters. Just how good (and bad) can a remake possibly be? We take a look at examples of both extremes released since 2000.