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

User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1213 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. JohnK.
    Dec 17, 2005
    Before rating this movie, I tried something that Metacritic voters usually don't try...I saw the movie. [Ed: Hey now...] It was great, honestly, and if you can't take the length, skip it; while you're at it, skip The Godfather and The Aviator and every other great movie that bulldozed past 2 hours. This is an action classic. The CGI was fantastic, the script was great (besides a few missteps early on). Bad reviewers, have fun being a niche and a trendster. Everyone thinks you're smart because you can't have a good time. Enjoy the self importance. We'll be over here on the rollercoaster. Expand
  2. LuxyPichus
    Jan 7, 2006
    Hey only one word!, GREAT!. Dont go see it if u dont enjoy fantasy. Because this is big!!! BIG.
  3. Aug 14, 2010
    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
  4. MP
    Dec 17, 2005
    A very solid 8. Anyone giving it less then about a 4 is an idiot. This movie is as bad as Gigli? I don't think so. I think the people giving the a 10 are a bit overenthusiastic, but at least they are closer to reality. Yes, some scenes were less then realistic. But the movie is fantasy, so that's fine with me. You have no problem with the 25 foot gorilla or the t. rex, but Naomi Watts underdressed in the winter is completely unbelievable? I agree that the film could have used some editing. A few scenes could have been shortened, and a few left out completely. But those are quibbles. Even with it's problems, it was still a great movie. Maybe not a masterpiece, but certainly better then 95% of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days. Collapse
  5. GregS.
    Dec 18, 2005
    What a disappointment. Even the 1933 version had a better story line. Sure the effects are amazing, but shouldn't they be? Terrible waste of energy. Bring back Jessica and Fay. Expand
  6. steve
    Dec 22, 2005
    About 75 min too long. almost every scene was too long and generally repetitive. boring. great FX. completely realistic giant gorilla. yet still boring and filled with characters i didn't care about. i almost left early. Expand
  7. JohnH.
    Dec 14, 2005
    This is just bad. Mr. Jackson has failed us again.

See all 618 User Reviews


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.