King Kong

10

LoreenaT.Jan 11, 2006

I just want to say, that this movie should win Oscars, precious!. Goooood.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

MonsterJan 11, 2006

Fascinating movie, I want on Dvd yet. My score? 10

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

TrainerFredJan 11, 2006

Peter Jackson couldn't train a mouse to eat cheese after watching this garbage. Over three hours long and about three hours should have been left on the cutting room floor. Garbage in is garbage out. Awful.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

RalphieBoyJan 11, 2006

King Krap is more like it!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

TomRJan 11, 2006

This is just great movie making. I loved it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

DimitrisB.Jan 11, 2006

It a good remake.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

GoffyA.Jan 11, 2006

How bad can a movie be? In two words: KING KONG.

1 of 3 users found this helpful

10

KondaR.Jan 11, 2006

This movie needs 10...It has action, mystery with adventure,emotinal turnout Though a sad ending my score is 10 For this epic.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

NumbyJan 11, 2006

So Sly it was made with intelligence? It's quite obvious that you and the others that loved this crapola have no command of the Queen's English. This is nothing more than an elaborate video pinball machine with flashing lights and So Sly it was made with intelligence? It's quite obvious that you and the others that loved this crapola have no command of the Queen's English. This is nothing more than an elaborate video pinball machine with flashing lights and bells and whistles. It has no intelligent dialogue, impossible to believe action scenes that are comical and only appeal to juveniles with an IQ of less than 85. Most of this trailer trash belonged on the cutting room floor as it is way too long, but to people like Sly this was one hell of a movie. All I can say is Sly I am glad that you enjoyed it. Have you tried a kalaidescope because the pretty colors can do the same for you for less than the cost of a ticket? Kong is ridiculous with horrible directing and wooden stiff acting. Peter Jackson should be ashamed.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

FilmbufsJan 11, 2006

Sometimes, even in epic adventures, it is the subtle moments that stand out. Although the efx are outstanding (for the most part) it is the relationship between Kong and Anne Darrow that remain memorable. When dialogue occurs, however, we Sometimes, even in epic adventures, it is the subtle moments that stand out. Although the efx are outstanding (for the most part) it is the relationship between Kong and Anne Darrow that remain memorable. When dialogue occurs, however, we see Kevin Jackson's unmistakable weakness. He can direct special efx sequences but appears to have difficulty with actors. Thankfully, there are many, many moments that rely on unspoken emotions and all of them between Kong and Darrow. The movie is bearable during the first hour as they attempt to give motivation for going on a boat trip to an uncharted isle. This three hour tour does get rough as plot points and characters are essentially sketched in but we all know what's in store. Thankfully, there is a noticeable shift as the second hour begins. The creepy fog settling on the boat cleanes our palate as we approach Skull Island. We're not in Kansas anymore, nor are we in the technicolor, dilluted, depression-era NY where overacting reins king. The adventure finally begins and never eases up. King Kong is not without flaws, even in the special efx department, but overall everything is forgiven as we gladly latch on to a ride for the remaining two-thirds of the movie. Some plot points are laughable, more than a few characters are on-screen without proper motivation (a huge, consistent problem with Jackson's movies) and some of the efx look unbelievable or unfinished. But it's the quiet moments as we see the expressions revealed in Kong's eyes that drive the story and make us believe. Andy Serkis once again provides more emotion and depth in digital form than several of the live actors. It's a sad statement really, but quite the accomplishment for Mr. Serkis. King Kong lives up to the hype and you should definitely see this on the big screen. At least the last two-thirds.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

LuisC.Jan 10, 2006

Funny, goood, Amazing!, very enjoyable to be a fantastic film, made me feel all kind of emotions.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

MichaelO.Jan 10, 2006

Really, most of this movie was quite good. The story isn't much, but it's an action flick. The special effects were pretty good, although some of them seemed silly. The huge downside to this movie is that it's about 60 minutes Really, most of this movie was quite good. The story isn't much, but it's an action flick. The special effects were pretty good, although some of them seemed silly. The huge downside to this movie is that it's about 60 minutes too long. Some scenes just drag on and on.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

AndyT.Jan 10, 2006

My favorite of 2005, Excelent direction of Art.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

TylerD.Jan 10, 2006

King Kong is one amazing achievement. Kong himself was animated beautifully, and the atmosphere of the movie is incredible. Highly reccomendable. This isn't the same at home. It needs to be seen in theaters.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

HoraceJan 10, 2006

Awful and laughable. A waste of my time.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

perrybJan 10, 2006

I guess that if you give an infinite number of nerds an infinite number of computer graphics workstations then this is the best that can be hoped for - a film that only a fan boy can love.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

SlyK.Jan 9, 2006

Stunning and Spectacular ! is the movie. Fool of criteria those who hate it. Poor of them , is only fantasy and a big ape !, Dont be so serious , just relax and anjoy an amazing world of creativity that this incredible director Jackson is Stunning and Spectacular ! is the movie. Fool of criteria those who hate it. Poor of them , is only fantasy and a big ape !, Dont be so serious , just relax and anjoy an amazing world of creativity that this incredible director Jackson is able to do for everyone. Got it ?. The movie is simply brilliant and made with intelligence.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

AdalR.Jan 9, 2006

Hey!, que traen tantos amargados!, una pelicula como esta no merece menos de 6, es buenisisma mejor que la original en todos sus aspectos, presume de buena hasta en el guión, aunque con ciertas y aparentes fallas, resultan Hey!, que traen tantos amargados!, una pelicula como esta no merece menos de 6, es buenisisma mejor que la original en todos sus aspectos, presume de buena hasta en el guión, aunque con ciertas y aparentes fallas, resultan innecesarias mas explicaciones obvias ?. Le quedó de lujo al Director Peter. OK, aunque algunos envidiosos ya le temen, excelente pelicula, muy recomendable amigos.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

SaboCatchKongJan 9, 2006

Critics and me are agree, this movie is one of the best of 2005, the ride is unforgettable in the Skull island, kong ( andy serkis ), excelent again like Gollum in LOTR, Naomi good enough in her role ! , Excelent movie, only recommended for Critics and me are agree, this movie is one of the best of 2005, the ride is unforgettable in the Skull island, kong ( andy serkis ), excelent again like Gollum in LOTR, Naomi good enough in her role ! , Excelent movie, only recommended for real movie lovers.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

MarkosT.Jan 9, 2006

Few words... Great and Fantastic !

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

MonserrattheniceJan 9, 2006

Please!. Dont hate this movie for being so good!, dont be afraid !, it wont win best picture at Oscars, but some yes!!, maybe 4 for technical, but for me its the best of the year!.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

masoudb.Jan 9, 2006

Not that impressed.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

BombitoJan 9, 2006

Very, very Goooooooooood movie!, just for poeple who seriously loves Cimena.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

jamesbondageJan 9, 2006

A very impressive movie that proves, at times, there can be too much of a good thing. The acting was good, and was impressed by Jack Black but they could have cut a few of the action sequences. They tended to go on a little long. But to the A very impressive movie that proves, at times, there can be too much of a good thing. The acting was good, and was impressed by Jack Black but they could have cut a few of the action sequences. They tended to go on a little long. But to the people who hated it, just be glad it was Jackson and not Michael Bay who re-made Kong, or there would have been zero character development and would have been a huge steaming pile of monkey crap.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

TomD.Jan 9, 2006

Absolutely worh your money. Yes, slightly overlong, but you might as well complain that Tchaikovsky used string instruments too often. If you're looking for a film that is a quick and punishing monster flick, you're better off Absolutely worh your money. Yes, slightly overlong, but you might as well complain that Tchaikovsky used string instruments too often. If you're looking for a film that is a quick and punishing monster flick, you're better off reviewing the original. If, instead, you want to see great performances, stunning visual effects and a polished story and plot that leave you feeling satisfied but still wanting more, then this would be your film. I hope it makes a shitload of money - when held up against the lesser and weaker Narnia film, it certainly deserves to.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

QueenieJan 9, 2006

K = Krapola I = Idiotic N = Nonsensical G = Grating K = Kindergarden O = Obnoxious N = Numbing G = Garbage.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

PaulJan 9, 2006

This movie was definitely worth the watch. My only complaint was that it was too long. King Kong looked incredibly real and the actors did a pretty good job. The action scenes were incredible, especially the one with Kong vs. the T Rex (in This movie was definitely worth the watch. My only complaint was that it was too long. King Kong looked incredibly real and the actors did a pretty good job. The action scenes were incredible, especially the one with Kong vs. the T Rex (in the vines!!!) There are too many people giving it a 10 because they like it or a 0 because they don't. Well, it's somewhere in between. People should start to rate fairly. Anyways, go see the movie. It's one that you'll appreciate more on the big screen. Just be sure your seats are comfortable before the show starts.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

MattiÄ.Jan 9, 2006

This was worse than I thought. The trip in the Skull Iland was very good part of the movie. But all other things were so trash.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

GrahamS.Jan 9, 2006

At least an hour too long. Good performances from all actors, and special effects - but I was completely bored by this stage.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

DrakeR.Jan 9, 2006

Quite possibly the biggest bomb next to War Of The Worlds this past year. Peter Jackson should have left about an hour and a half of this film on the cutting room floor. It is an amateur production with laughable action scenes that are Quite possibly the biggest bomb next to War Of The Worlds this past year. Peter Jackson should have left about an hour and a half of this film on the cutting room floor. It is an amateur production with laughable action scenes that are ridiculous. About the only one this trash appeals to is juveniles with attention spans of a gnat. Avoid at all costs. No wonder word of mouth caused it to drop out of Number One at the Box Office after only 2 weeks. Bad acting, directing and no dialogue. Other than that and being way tooooo long it was wonderful.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

CongoGongoJan 9, 2006

If this movie was on the Gong Show it would be booed off the stage. Just a total joke with bad directing by an otherwise overrated in love with himself Peter Jackson. Jack Black needs to find another career. Preposterous.

1 of 2 users found this helpful

5

MollyT.Jan 8, 2006

You know i thought this had some good acting by Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts. But this movie was very 'lets put these characters in worst case senerio moments and give them more luck than any Irish man could meret.' I found this You know i thought this had some good acting by Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts. But this movie was very 'lets put these characters in worst case senerio moments and give them more luck than any Irish man could meret.' I found this movie very unrealistic.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

JackY.Jan 8, 2006

This movie was supper repetitive. [Ed: So is that "p".] The whole plot seemed to be about chasing the people for half and hour and then figuring how many ways there are to tear somebody's head off.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

MathewA.Jan 8, 2006

An amazing experience with little techincal flaw. Jack Black's performance was the only real element that hurt the film, however he is easily forgiven as the majority of Kong involves.. well, Kong.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

ChapixJan 8, 2006

No words for this fantastic movie, because then I can not stop... all here is Geat!. Excelent !.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

ChukC.Jan 8, 2006

I agree with most o real critics no with those who would like to be a real one. Because no one movie deserves a 0 , well no one like this. This is simply an excelent picture, I give it more than 10.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

KINKYC.Jan 8, 2006

Well!, there are many comments here!, some hate movies and enter here to give a Zero!, and persons like me who love Fantasy movies, over all if it is done with all the love like Peter J. can put in this amazing project, one of the best for 2005.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

JohnJan 8, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

HassanJan 8, 2006

Horrendous and a total waste of 200m. This was a joke. The audience started walking out in the middle. Bad script, bad actoring, and awful directing. Jackson is one trick wonder.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

AliceJan 8, 2006

Most of this film belongs on the floor after being edited. The writing is awful and the story convoluted. Contrary to what others have said, this version of Kong loosely follows the original. The dialogue and the action scenes make no sense. Most of this film belongs on the floor after being edited. The writing is awful and the story convoluted. Contrary to what others have said, this version of Kong loosely follows the original. The dialogue and the action scenes make no sense. The conflicts on Skull Island are illogical and even if we want to suspend all belief it still is comical in nature. About the only think this flick is good for is a video game with its flashing lights and bells. Jackson bombed.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

HoobyDoobyJan 8, 2006

This movie had me completely bored. First off: there's no likeable characters. The Jack Black character gives you the impression that he's insane, like in the scenes where they're running from dinosaurs and he's just This movie had me completely bored. First off: there's no likeable characters. The Jack Black character gives you the impression that he's insane, like in the scenes where they're running from dinosaurs and he's just sitting their filming it. You don't feel much affection for Kong (unlike the original). He doesn't show that much emotion. And the Naomi Watts character comes off as insane, as she professes to everyone that she LOVES the monkey. When you are in LOVE with a thousand-pound gorilla, people are not going to like your character. So, basically, what we got here is no likeably characters in a story we've heard thousands of times before. If it wasn't for the $200 million is special effects, I would give this a zero.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

DickieJan 8, 2006

Jackson goes wild with his $200M box of crayons and crapola is the result. He miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. His first hour is boring and unncecessary. Then when we get to Jurassic Park the man loses all credibility with laughable Jackson goes wild with his $200M box of crayons and crapola is the result. He miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. His first hour is boring and unncecessary. Then when we get to Jurassic Park the man loses all credibility with laughable writing, lack of editing, and poor directing. Half of this movie should have been omitted and perhaps with someone having some talent we could have had meaningful dialogue? But instead we get a mishmosh with Jackson playing with his CGI to his hearts content in producing a video game that only a ten year old with a lobotomized brain could love? In reading the reviews did some of you juvenile posters actually say this was the best movie ever? The fact that with all the PR Kong dropped from number one at the Box Office in less than 2 weeks says all that has to be said. This is a very poor effort by Jackson on the recent order of George Lucas. The only thing missing from this disaster was casting Tom Cruise. Jack Black and Tom Cruise in War of The Worlds. Two no-talents in blockbusters in the same year. Ugly!… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful

10

LuxyPichusJan 7, 2006

Hey only one word!, GREAT!. Dont go see it if u dont enjoy fantasy. Because this is big!!! BIG.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

YoliKnightJan 7, 2006

I went to see this movie recently and now I love it. Excellent!.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

ElliottJan 7, 2006

People who are commenting on the plausibility of King Kong are bafoons. This movie stays so true to the original story while also expanding on it and bringing it to life in the new millennium. This movie is outstanding, definitely the best People who are commenting on the plausibility of King Kong are bafoons. This movie stays so true to the original story while also expanding on it and bringing it to life in the new millennium. This movie is outstanding, definitely the best big-budget film of the year. People who give something like this a zero must be working on a negative scale. King Kong is fantastic, simply stunning.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

MarcelG.Jan 6, 2006

Well made and lot of action. Great attention to detail. Focus to much on lady-gorrilla relationship! Very emotional and powerful.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

HowardJan 6, 2006

Special Effects were good not great. As for the rest of the flick it was just too awful to be beleived. I love a good fantasy story as much as the next person but the script, the plot holes, the poor choice in casting and the unediting was Special Effects were good not great. As for the rest of the flick it was just too awful to be beleived. I love a good fantasy story as much as the next person but the script, the plot holes, the poor choice in casting and the unediting was simply terrible. The directing and meaningful dialogue were nonexistant. All in all if this was made for TV channels would be switching stations in about 20 minutes. Terrible effort by an otherwise talented Mr. Jackson.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

FilmfanJan 6, 2006

I was completely bored, and disappointed that Peter Jackson did not bring anything original to the movie. It is way too long and seems to be going through the motions. He studied Spielberg and The Titanic way too much before making this film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

LouisM.Jan 6, 2006

I am very critical on movies and they need to really blow me away before I start saying good things. To describe this movie in words just does not make sense. It is a visual feast to say the least. It is filled with emotion and honesty. The I am very critical on movies and they need to really blow me away before I start saying good things. To describe this movie in words just does not make sense. It is a visual feast to say the least. It is filled with emotion and honesty. The depiction of Kong's personality is endearing. The movie frightens, humours, saddens, but most of all, entertains beyond belief. 3 hours never felt this short. A movie for people who will never grow up and who will never stop believing in incredible fantasy. Films like these are the reason I go to the movies.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JeffJan 5, 2006

Gratuitous, soulless, shallow and stupid. This isn't a movie: it's a video game.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

0

TonyMontanaJan 5, 2006

If a fence-sitter was to base whether or not he was going to see this film based on the user comments here, then he would definitely have to side with those reviewers who give KING KONG a big, fat ZERO. With few exceptions, the negativeIf a fence-sitter was to base whether or not he was going to see this film based on the user comments here, then he would definitely have to side with those reviewers who give KING KONG a big, fat ZERO. With few exceptions, the negative posters are generally articulate, but the posters who rate it a 10 out of 10 'masterpiece' come across as children or adults of severely limited cranial activity. I particularly LMAO at the poster who gave it a 10 and called Peter Jackson a 'genious autuere". Says it all really...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

ZacharyJan 5, 2006

Simply Disappointing. High on quantitiy, low on quality. Unbearable long and boring, this movie has no idea what direction it is going in. The begining scenes of New York are magnificent, but in this film the "special effects" take precedent Simply Disappointing. High on quantitiy, low on quality. Unbearable long and boring, this movie has no idea what direction it is going in. The begining scenes of New York are magnificent, but in this film the "special effects" take precedent over the plot. The love story isn't believable, and by the end of the movie the audience member is left with too many uncertanties. This movie is not memeroble, thought provoking or worthwhile, a three hour cinema bore.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

SimonC.Jan 5, 2006

>Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. OK. Since you asked, I'll try to address a couple of point you have raised. >And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to >Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. OK. Since you asked, I'll try to address a couple of point you have raised. >And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to sleep. Well, it was an entire flagon of it, and it hit him right on the nose. Would that be enough to put a 25 foot gorilla to sleep? I don't know, but it's debatable, and therefore hardly a glaring plot hole. >Can anyone explain how he did not drown or how they lifted him on the damged little tug boat that could? When he fell unconscious, his was clearly shown resting on a rock, not in the water. Who knows how they got him to the boat. They may have been able to bring the ship closer and winch him aboard. Perhaps this is unlikely, but again, I wouldn't consider it to be a glaring plot hole. It's not a documentary, you know. >And if you want to believe that how did they feed him or contain him on his journey back to NYC? Do you want to tell me that they magically obtained steel chains that tied him to the damaged boat? Is it inconceivable that a boat and crew that specialises in capturing wild animals would have chains and sufficient food on board? I'd suggest they rigged up a cage and chains on the main cargo deck. >Well, if that's not bad enough when he arrives in NYC they had to have rehearsals before the native dance number with the blonde, not Ann Darrow, sacrifice right? How come he never reacted that entire time. I guess he waited for opening night to destroy NYC? The flashbulbs from the press clearly triggered his rage. The press would not have been there for rehearsals, only for opening night. > And if that wasn't enough, the ending in the winter with Ann without a coat in a light spring dress with high heels ascending up the ladder to the top of the tallest building in NYC was just the icing on the cake. So she was wearing the costume from that chorus girl show she was in, and didn't put on a cold because she ran outside in a rush after hearing the commotion. Is that such a big deal? >And by the way, where did the natives disappear to? Remember that they risked life and limb to kidnap Ann for Kong but somehow vanished when he got hit with a little teenie weenie bottle of chloroform. A) They cleared out when the sailors arrived with guns. B) I assume they would have cleared even further out when they heard Kong smashing the gate down. They weren't trying to feed Darrow to Kong because they love him, you know. It was a sacrifice. They were terrified of him. They wouldn't stick around to see what happened after he knocked the gate down. >You people raving about this trailer trash of a movie are totally insane. You are desparately in need of some professional help. I didn't think the movie was fantastic at all. I thought the compositing between CG and live action was often poor, and I loathe the jerky motion effect Jackson uses in the first encounter with the island natives, but most of the issues you have raised here are non-issues, given the fantastic premise of the film. If you want it to adhere stictly to the limits of reality, there would be NO 25 foot ape!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

DanF.Jan 5, 2006

Don't listen to the whiners here. Hands-down, this is the best popcorn movie I've ever seen. A thin storyline and long running time was more than made up for by the relentless action, scares, and just plain FUN. The last line of Don't listen to the whiners here. Hands-down, this is the best popcorn movie I've ever seen. A thin storyline and long running time was more than made up for by the relentless action, scares, and just plain FUN. The last line of the movie was pretty silly, but that's all that kept it from a 10 to me. If you're looking for story, see Munich or Syriana. But if you want fun, Kong is king.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

FedUpJan 5, 2006

When are these bought and paid for professional critics have to answer for their actions? I work hard for my money. I don't want to throw it away on absolutely worthless junk. There is no point rehashing what others have said about this When are these bought and paid for professional critics have to answer for their actions? I work hard for my money. I don't want to throw it away on absolutely worthless junk. There is no point rehashing what others have said about this trash. The acting, casting, directing and script were sorely lacking. I walked out with several others after the Jurassic Park adventure ride. It was as preposterous as the first hour that was crude and just plain boring. There are no words to ever express my outrage that I was played for a sucker by a critic that is paid to report the truth. If any critic wants to take me on one on one point by point be my guest. To give this film a score next to perfect means that the critic had to (A) have been bought and paid for or (B) had a lobotomy and is grossly unable to perform the duties for the paper that hired him or her. Be warned this is a juvenile film of the lowest order. Peter Jackson is a disgrace.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JaredJan 5, 2006

I have only one question for Peter Jackson. Your version of King Kong was so childish where was Godzilla and Mothra? That's all that was missing from that ridiculous implausable Skull Island where Jackson lost all credibility. His I have only one question for Peter Jackson. Your version of King Kong was so childish where was Godzilla and Mothra? That's all that was missing from that ridiculous implausable Skull Island where Jackson lost all credibility. His remake of King Kong and Jurassic Park was just a farce. There was the Big APE holding Naomi in one hand while fighting three T-Rex's at the same time. Preposterous. Then when the Captain arrived swinging on a vine machine gunning spiders without any of the bullets penetrating Adrian Brody and Jack Black well that was just too much. But when the Bats attacked King Kong with two humans standing and watching without being attacked with Adrian catching a BAT by the tail and gently hang gliding Naomi and him down the mountain, well, at that point the audience started laughing. As for getting Kong back to NY without destroying the boat let's not even go there. The NY debacle could not come fast enough as it was a joke. Where was that damn BAT when Kong needed him atop the Empire State Buidling? Preposterous movie without any suspense, believablity, acting or directing.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

ManF.Jan 5, 2006

Wow, a lot of people here seem to have never gone to a movie before. What else could explain the 10's this turd is receiving other than to say that these people were amazed by the terrible CGI because they've never experienced them Wow, a lot of people here seem to have never gone to a movie before. What else could explain the 10's this turd is receiving other than to say that these people were amazed by the terrible CGI because they've never experienced them before, thought the dialogue and the love between Kong and Watts was real and incredible because they've never seen a Disney kid's movie (which will most likely have dialogue and emotions far realer than anything here), and most of all thought this was worth their time? At Least Armageddon was about half an hour shorter than this. Peter Jackson is a terrible, overrated hack and describing a director as "a child in a man's body" should really stop being considered a compliment.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

EmWJan 5, 2006

I was really blown away by this!!! Just... WOW!!! I haven't seen a movie this entertaining for me except the Lord of the Rings movies! This film had some of the greatest special effects I have ever seen, and the acting between the two I was really blown away by this!!! Just... WOW!!! I haven't seen a movie this entertaining for me except the Lord of the Rings movies! This film had some of the greatest special effects I have ever seen, and the acting between the two leads was fantastic! (I loved Jack Black aswell) But people. . .Boring?. .Too long?. . .You have got to be kidding me! Don't people enjoy movies these days! They were the quickest and most fun 3 hours I have ever spent at the cinema, yeah so what the first hour had no Kong, but it's called telling the story and if taking it back to that time in the 1930's (how it was in the original film) isn't respectful to the original and doesn't show dedication to the craft. . . then pigs fly. Unrealistic? COME ON!!! Was Lord of the Rings realistic??? Hmmm. . . then what about Harry Potter? The Chronicles of Narnia anyone? The Descent? Spiderman? Dont get me wrong, their all great films, though unrealistic, but who cares! It's called E.N.T.E.R.T.A.I.N.M.E.N.T and nothing has to make sense in films thats the beauty of films in gerneral and the freedom you get with making them. Why can't King Kong fight 3 T-Rex's?! This idea was used to convey the strength of Kong and the lengths he would go to in order to keep his beloved safe. It seems to me that these days people lack imagination! It's not meant to be very tangible! LOL! Hey, it's a good film if YOU enjoyed it. I even recommended it to one of my good friends and she LOVED it as much as me!! The relationship between King Kong and Ann was lovely and very romantic!!! (The Central Park scene especially!!) King was such a dreamboat of an ape!! You could definitley tell that she felt the same way and that no male would ever make such an impression on her as Kong has, she needs him and likewise. You knew that she would have chosen Kong if she had the choice, compared to Jack Driscoll. I wish guys would protect me like that (if ever i was in danger, etc!) But he wasn't just protective, he was also faithful to her! He searched for her when he escaped from the chains in New York And that sunset scene when he patted his chest like Ann did earlier with him, brought tears to my eyes. "Beautiful" says Ann, I could'nt of put it better myself. :)… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

PeterS.Jan 5, 2006

Delightful, full of surprises, but way too long and repetitive. Jackson didn't know when to quit. Certainly half-an-hour sooner than he did.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

DanC.Jan 4, 2006

The best scenes in the movie are when Kong and Ann are together: they showed a development in their relationship, and the special effects are terrific. Sadly, the movie is too LONG, extremely LONG, there a lot of scenes that could been cut The best scenes in the movie are when Kong and Ann are together: they showed a development in their relationship, and the special effects are terrific. Sadly, the movie is too LONG, extremely LONG, there a lot of scenes that could been cut and if wouldn't affect anyhow the plot; scenes such as the battle with the giant insects!!!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

BB3RJan 4, 2006

Many people hate this movie, thats because they dont know how to enjoy fantasy or... dont have any idea about quality of movies, just relax men and enjoy the picture, one of the best this year. AMAZING !!.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

DarylS.Jan 4, 2006

Universal acclaim? Oh spare me. Enough with the spiders and lobsters and tyrannosauri rex. That was all a distraction, and I sat there waiting for them to GET ON WITH THE STORY! Oh truly, any movie that ends with "It was beauty the killed Universal acclaim? Oh spare me. Enough with the spiders and lobsters and tyrannosauri rex. That was all a distraction, and I sat there waiting for them to GET ON WITH THE STORY! Oh truly, any movie that ends with "It was beauty the killed the beast" (at which point the entire cinema groaned). Script had no bearing on this movie. I went with no expectations, and left wondering what had happened. And I got a sore back to boot, after three hours sitting there wanting wanting wanting it to get better. But it just didn't. CGI is all well and good; but without a script, it's just all bells and whistles. Very disappointing.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

MooseJan 4, 2006

LOL, Weldon. I couldn't have said it better myself. This one's for the kiddies.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

SueMJan 4, 2006

Eh.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

MichaelCJan 4, 2006

The first part of the movie is the strongest. After that your oversized pocorn finds the way to your throat. Every action scene is like the punch in your stomach (not in a good way).

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

AdamLJan 4, 2006

Great Movie, the length is necessary and the effects are amazing.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

AngieJan 4, 2006

Simply Amazing, but if you didn't like Lord of the Rings you aren't going to like this either.... Peter Jackson makes movies for people who actually have attention spans.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JeffH.Jan 4, 2006

Entertaining, but not even close to the hype. Naomi Watts was good, but the extremely fake dinosaur scenes ruined the movie, and there were a lot of them. And there were truly bizarre moments, particularly when Naomi Watts starts juggling Entertaining, but not even close to the hype. Naomi Watts was good, but the extremely fake dinosaur scenes ruined the movie, and there were a lot of them. And there were truly bizarre moments, particularly when Naomi Watts starts juggling and doing acrobatic stunts for Kong. Yeah, that's believable.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

BillJan 4, 2006

This was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was terrible and the dialogue was sappy. If not for the special effects, it could easily be ranked as one of the worst movies of all time. The fact that it is 3.5 This was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was terrible and the dialogue was sappy. If not for the special effects, it could easily be ranked as one of the worst movies of all time. The fact that it is 3.5 hours, when it should have been 90 minutes, puts it in a class all by itself.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

RockyL.Jan 4, 2006

Paul F. said it best when he said the overload of special effects finally made him numb to the experience. And that is part of the problem. Peter Jackson got so excited with his new toys that he forgot to leave some of the CGI on the cutting Paul F. said it best when he said the overload of special effects finally made him numb to the experience. And that is part of the problem. Peter Jackson got so excited with his new toys that he forgot to leave some of the CGI on the cutting room floor. The editing was awful. As for the acting, Naomi Watts is certainly easy on the eyes but did anyone see any chemistry with Adrian Brody. I for one did not. As for Jack Black he was simply miscast. He is one dimensional and should have never been given the role. As for the script, Peter Jackson took the basic concept but by the time we get to Skull Island with the illogical action scenes all credibility is lost. By the time we get back to NYC who really cares? The supsense is gone as we all know the big ape is going to climb up the Empire State Building to take his eventual swan dive for hopefully the third and final time. As a judge as he dives into the pool I heard the audience gasp 1.0, 1.5, 0.2, 0.5 and thus my 1 rating. The dialogue was awful, the writing terrible, the length of the movie about an hour too long, and the acting and directing abysmal. Other than that this was the BEST movie I have ever seen. Now I feel like one of these ten year olds who say this should win BEST PICTURE of THE YEAR? Give me a break.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

PaulF.Jan 3, 2006

Worst part to the whole movie was that it was all of three hours. This film could have easily been two great films instead of one almost really good film. The first part was almost two hours and was very entertaining but it was too much of a Worst part to the whole movie was that it was all of three hours. This film could have easily been two great films instead of one almost really good film. The first part was almost two hours and was very entertaining but it was too much of a jarring to cut straight back to New York. The relationship with King Kong and the blonde beauty almost seemed more romantic than a platonic love. It was conveyed really well and left her love for the writer out in the cold. It was a choice that was interesting but could have been more balanced. It was hard for me to take Jack Black seriously but overall I think he did better than expected. The best aspect to this film was the special effects, the best I have ever seen, and that's saying a lot. The only problem was the action was at times over the top for too long. My adernals were on overload and eventual numb to the experience. It's definitely worth a see but sad that it could have been so much more. I preferred the version with Jeff Bridges better. King Kong seemed much genteler at first and the blonde beauty seemed to truly love her man as well as her beast.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

DunceCapJan 3, 2006

Fred you don't have an honest opinon. You sound as if you are ten years old so I will cut you some slack. But opinions are like pie holes as everyone has one including me. For my money this movie was the pits. Peter Jackson is Fred you don't have an honest opinon. You sound as if you are ten years old so I will cut you some slack. But opinions are like pie holes as everyone has one including me. For my money this movie was the pits. Peter Jackson is definitely in need of some professional counseling if this is the best he can do with a budget of two hundred million dollars. The acting was bad. The directing even worse. And as for the dialogue what little there was well let's just say it was poor. The CGI was good in spots and horrid in others. Over all this movie was a total bomb. A turkey. Thanksgiving rather than Christmas would have been more appropriate to present this lame turkey with all the stuffing. Way toooo long and boring.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

MarkB.Jan 3, 2006

If I really wanted to dig deep to find a complaint, I suppose I could point out that Peter Jackson's depiction of Skull Island as the ultimate untamed frontier--replete with dinosaurs that cause more damage bumping into each other than If I really wanted to dig deep to find a complaint, I suppose I could point out that Peter Jackson's depiction of Skull Island as the ultimate untamed frontier--replete with dinosaurs that cause more damage bumping into each other than attacking you, bugs the size of kitchen toasters, and not a single smooth-surfaced rock in sight--inadvertently reinforces the Cheneyesque view that ALL of nature needs to be controlled, dominated and bulldozed. But that argument is strictly academic (not to say facetious); Jackson, whose Lord of the Rings films I've admired at arm's length without actually loving, has made a grand entertainment that's deeply respectful to Merian Cooper's and Ernest Schoedsack's 1933 classic when necessary, improves on it when even more necessary, and is among the speediest three hours I've ever spent in or outside a theater. First up for praise is the picture's truly spectacular production design, which elevates computer work to an uncharted level; not only is the aforementioned Skull Island the ultimate outdoor charnel house waiting to happen, but even more astonishing is Jackson's depiction of both economic ends of Depression-era New York. (I've seen hundreds of early 1930s films and other depictions of the time, and was floored by how accurately Jackson got every detail--right down to the style of poster lettering at the burlesque house where Ann Darrow considers working.) The technical excellence wouldn't register nearly as sharply without the human element, and the central performances wonderfully flesh out what were strictly one-dimensional characterizations in the original: Andy Serkis makes the big ape more recognizably human than most human actors playing human beings made them this year; Adrien Brody satisfyingly portrays the best kind of movie hero--an unexpected one; and Jack Black so amusingly and pungently conveys the carny-act sleaziness of filmmaker Carl Denham that it may disappoint some viewers that his character doesn't get more of a comeuppance than he does. The real breakthrough, however, is Naomi Watts: she's previously been impressive in everything she's done (Mulholland Drive, 21 Grams, I Heart Huckabees) but responding largely to greenscreen and Serkis, truly becomes a great actress here, transforming a role that was previously trademarked by Fay Wray's wall-to-wall screaming into a stunning portrait of childlike wonder and adult compassion; only Amy Adams in Junebug is Watts' recent equal in depicting a genuinely good person without making her unbelievable or saccharine. (Time magazine film critic Richard Schickel's cranky assertion that Watts' Ann Darrow has the hots for Kong has got to be the most ridiculous statement that Schickel has made in a mostly honorable 50-year career, but then the gleeful schaudenfraude exhibited by some of the press over the fact that Kong will end up doing healthy Batman Begins business, rather than unprecedented Titanic box office is equally childish and disgraceful.) Watts' characterization of Ann, and its conception on the script level, mark the point where Jackson's Kong transcends Cooper's and Schoedsack's; not only does it make infinitely more dramatic sense for Ann to NOT want anything to do with Kong's exploitation and degradation, but her complex, multifaceted tenderness towards him far surpasses Fay Wray's bling, one-note terror, which for me was the most annoying and frustrating aspect of the original; Watts transforms this Kong into a far more emotionally resonant and heartwrenching experience. Everyone laughed when the 1976 Dino DeLaurentiis-produced remake (a misguided effort marked by badly-conceived social commentary, newcomer Jessica Lange's amusing spin on the heroine, and lots of footage of a guy in an ape suit) touted itself as the "most original" film of its time; what's really amazing nearly 30 years later is that in a movie year that seemingly featured more movie remakes than ever (mostly unnecessary or worse), Jackson, in brilliantly and beautifully reimagining what for many movie fans is inviolable, has made a film that's truly deserving of that claim.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JimJ.Jan 3, 2006

There are some thrilling scenes, but no real sense of cohesiveness that would give the scenes more impact. A lot of the dialogue is pretty bad and Jackson uses that horrible slow motion effect from the begining of Fellowship of the Ring an There are some thrilling scenes, but no real sense of cohesiveness that would give the scenes more impact. A lot of the dialogue is pretty bad and Jackson uses that horrible slow motion effect from the begining of Fellowship of the Ring an awful lot in Kong. The movie is too long, and despite what some people say on here it is perfectly fine to dislike a movie when it is longer than it needs to be. That being said, 1930's New York looked great, the dinosaurs were amazing, and most of the actors gave captivating performances, particularly Naomi Watts.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

SidiotJan 3, 2006

A movie only an idiot can love? What was to like? The unoriginal story; the terrible acting, a lame script with more holes than swiss cheese; or the editing that never took place? Peter Jackson is in love with himself as that's obvious. A movie only an idiot can love? What was to like? The unoriginal story; the terrible acting, a lame script with more holes than swiss cheese; or the editing that never took place? Peter Jackson is in love with himself as that's obvious. Boring and ludicrous.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

FredJan 3, 2006

One of the best movies of all time, in my honest opinion. The love between Kong and Ann is very well represented to the point that you feel it; heck, you SEE it. In fact, this is probably my favorite "romantic" movie ever because One of the best movies of all time, in my honest opinion. The love between Kong and Ann is very well represented to the point that you feel it; heck, you SEE it. In fact, this is probably my favorite "romantic" movie ever because there's no cheesy dialogue that nobody in their right mind would ever say. This is real. There is no need for dialogue between Ann and Kong. Their love is shown in their emotion and their actions and that's far more believable than two characters saying, "Aw, I love you like the wind loves the..." blah, blah, blah. This is a love that anybody can relate to: well-spoken or not. It's true this film is long, but the long setup simple makes the ending that much more powerful. Would 'The Great Gatsby' be great if it were one page long? Some works of art need setup. King Kong certainly could have been made into a 90-minute Hollywood Special, but it wouldn't have had any emotional impact and it would have been the equivalent of Jurrasic Park: all the action, with none of the meaning. King Kong is a must-see for all.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

DaveC.Jan 3, 2006

I find it hilarious that people are giving KING KONG bad reviews based on plausibility!!?? This was supposed to be big, dumb, and fun. Did you all miss the first two versions? Were you expecting a Woody Allen or Fellini film?? This was Peter I find it hilarious that people are giving KING KONG bad reviews based on plausibility!!?? This was supposed to be big, dumb, and fun. Did you all miss the first two versions? Were you expecting a Woody Allen or Fellini film?? This was Peter Friggin Jackson doing King Kong!! You guys sound so stupid saying things like, "the T-Rex fight was so unrealistic". Of course it was!! LOL! Or, "how did they get him to New York"? Who gives a crap!? It's a MOVIE about a 4 ton gorilla!! Go with it. Have some fun. It isn't "Sideways" for godsakes(totally overrated crap BTW). I also love the criticism that "it was too long". I guess this is a bad thing in the year 2006. I guess people are just too busy these days to sit in a movie and just ENJOY themselves? How silly. Kong rocked and was the most fun I've ever had in a theater. A total blast!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

RodS.Jan 3, 2006

Most movies serve to either entertain, or to tell a story, many doing both. The question is, how well a movie accomplishes the above. P. Jackson's "King Kong" obviously is not "documentary" in the sense of the story-telling, but for a Most movies serve to either entertain, or to tell a story, many doing both. The question is, how well a movie accomplishes the above. P. Jackson's "King Kong" obviously is not "documentary" in the sense of the story-telling, but for a good old adventure story that is meant to entertain, this movie shines. For three hours I was totally immersed in another world, with all the romaticism and excitement reminiscent of my childhood escapist daydreams. I was enthralled by the images, the color palette, the action, the nail-biting suspense . . . This is a great movie that opens up a world of wonder and excitment, what I believe movie making originally was meant to be.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

I'mSorryMsJacksonJan 3, 2006

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 Thanks for watching my brilliant movie. What a lot of people don't know is how much work I put in, especially with my 'method' style of direction: I spent many months caged in an Auckland zoo, where I learned what it is to be a primate, and where I lost a lot of weight. When I had achieved a true monkey mentality, Universal shipped me under anaesthetic to the Kong sets, whereupon I was released under strict supervision. The actors were often unable to understand my various grunts, but I felt this created an exciting atmosphere on set, one where noone knew what they were doing. I also tended to throw the camera around when I got bored, but I think this adds to the film's dynamism. It is a shame that I accidentally urinated on the motion control rig, because it created a constant crane loop, sorry about this. Unfortunately the editing room was too small to contain my monkey vitality and we lost one editor cos I chewed on his nose and bashed on his ballsarea. This may have given the film an irregular tempo, but one I'm sure hairy animals will enjoy. On a personal note, I chose to keep the movie long to reproduce how I felt when I was caged in downtown Auckland. There were a few regrettable incidents, like when I threw Jack Black cos I mistook him for a log, but my only real regret is there hadn't been such a debilitating shortage of bananas when we wrote the script.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

SimonC.Jan 3, 2006

>Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. OK. Since you asked, I'll try to address a couple of point you have raised. >And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to >Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. OK. Since you asked, I'll try to address a couple of point you have raised. >And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to sleep. Well, it was an entire flagon of it, and it hit him right on the nose. Would that be enough to put a 25 foot gorilla to sleep? I don't know, but it's debatable, and therefore hardly a glaring plot hole. >Can anyone explain how he did not drown or how they lifted him on the damged little tug boat that could? When he fell unconscious, his was clearly shown resting on a rock, not in the water. Who knows how they got him to the boat. They may have been able to bring the ship closer and winch him aboard. Perhaps this is unlikely, but again, I wouldn't consider it to be a glaring plot hole. It's not a documentary, you know. >And if you want to believe that how did they feed him or contain him on his journey back to NYC? Do you want to tell me that they magically obtained steel chains that tied him to the damaged boat? Is it inconceivable that a boat and crew that specialises in capturing wild animals would have chains and sufficient food on board? I'd suggest they rigged up a cage and chains on the main cargo deck. >Well, if that's not bad enough when he arrives in NYC they had to have rehearsals before the native dance number with the blonde, not Ann Darrow, sacrifice right? How come he never reacted that entire time. I guess he waited for opening night to destroy NYC? The flashbulbs from the press clearly triggered his rage. The press would not have been there for rehearsals, only for opening night. > And if that wasn't enough, the ending in the winter with Ann without a coat in a light spring dress with high heels ascending up the ladder to the top of the tallest building in NYC was just the icing on the cake. So she was wearing the costume from that chorus girl show she was in, and didn't put on a cold because she ran outside in a rush after hearing the commotion. Is that such a big deal? >And by the way, where did the natives disappear to? Remember that they risked life and limb to kidnap Ann for Kong but somehow vanished when he got hit with a little teenie weenie bottle of chloroform. A) They cleared out when the sailors arrived with guns. B) I assume they would have cleared even further out when they heard Kong smashing the gate down. They weren't trying to feed Darrow to Kong because they love him, you know. It was a sacrifice. They were terrified of him. They wouldn't stick around to see what happened after he knocked the gate down. >You people raving about this trailer trash of a movie are totally insane. You are desparately in need of some professional help. I didn't think the movie was fantastic at all. I thought the compositing between CG and live action was often poor, and I loathe the jerky motion effect Jackson uses in the first encounter with the island natives, but most of the issues you have raised here are non-issues, given the fantastic premise of the film. If you want it to adhere stictly to the limits of reality, there would be NO 25 foot ape!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

AndyP.Jan 3, 2006

I guess Charles you have to be about 12 years old or else you would not have written the ridiculous review in which you gave this trash a perfect ten? You're excused. Ann loved Kong the way we love our dogs. After all he saved her life I guess Charles you have to be about 12 years old or else you would not have written the ridiculous review in which you gave this trash a perfect ten? You're excused. Ann loved Kong the way we love our dogs. After all he saved her life on more than one occassion, so wouldn't you too? So what's your point? Did she protest to anyone about bringing him back to NY to face his certain death? NO! Why? Because then it wouldn't be the rip off of the 19311 movie which was great. The acting with all due respect was wooden and superficial. There was no chemistry between Naomi and Adrian. Jack Black better stick to the School Of Rock as he was miscast here. The directing was terrible and the script was lame. Unless you care to explain away all of the inconsistencies in the story? Not a single one of you has attempted to do that because you know it would be impossible to do. The special effects were what they are but was there any new idea seen? No. This was just a video game for youngsters with ADD. If it entertained you that's great. Now the proof that this movie is a turkey is that after two weeks it has lost its number one ranking at the box office. This is from a movie that the critics who were bought and paid for raved about. Obviously word of mouth that this is an awful piece of work has spread on the street. How can this film be out of number one in less than three weeks? And it was replaced by a cartoon that has been out longer than this has. Peter Jackson got a free pass and has now joined George Lucas as a one dimensional character himself. All in all King Kong was terrible and is definitely not worth the price of admission. Avoid.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

360bobJan 3, 2006

Just like Titanic you know how it ends but its the journey there and its better than other monster flicks out there like Godzilla or free willy.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

AoifeG.Jan 3, 2006

Overall-Very good. For me there were three main problems... no.1- It really dragged on at the start it took too long to get into the actual story. no.2-When Carl was showing his discovery to everyone back in America he didn't bother Overall-Very good. For me there were three main problems... no.1- It really dragged on at the start it took too long to get into the actual story. no.2-When Carl was showing his discovery to everyone back in America he didn't bother telling them about the dinosours. In my opinion dinosours are more important about a giant ape.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

ROSEOFEnsenadaJan 2, 2006

Only one word... Excelent, poor of those who can not enjoy fantasy movies, only want see wars, please, change the world!, 10.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

CharlesL.Jan 2, 2006

This movie was simply amazing. All the people who give it 1s or 0s have no opinion at all, and are here by banned from voting again. You can't simply give a movie a 0 or 1 because it was too long, or YOU didn't like it. Its about This movie was simply amazing. All the people who give it 1s or 0s have no opinion at all, and are here by banned from voting again. You can't simply give a movie a 0 or 1 because it was too long, or YOU didn't like it. Its about what other people like, and that is great story telling, terrific acting, a great plot, and amazing special effects. Sure, some scenes felt a little cheesy, but those were followed up by scenes of magnificent perfection, scenes that star wars or lord of the rings could never show, scenes of love, with out words. Ann didn't say she loved kong, but you could feel it, and a movie that lets you feel emotion is perfection.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

TerriS.Jan 2, 2006

A movie of excesses; twice as long as it needed to be.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

CurtisS.Jan 2, 2006

This movie kicked ass and got to the point. this was the best movie that was based on the book ever. the director is the sh.t.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

WeldonN.Jan 2, 2006

Probably great for ages 6-12. If you are 13 or over, don't go because your snoring will probably disturb the kids.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

AllenJan 2, 2006

Dennis you said anyone who gives this film a rating lower than a 5 is not to be taken seriously? Likewise your rating is preposterous. There was no dialogue in this tedious film. The acting was inept and the directing even worse. I have seen Dennis you said anyone who gives this film a rating lower than a 5 is not to be taken seriously? Likewise your rating is preposterous. There was no dialogue in this tedious film. The acting was inept and the directing even worse. I have seen better special effects on video games. As for the story it is not original as it is a remake of a remake. There was no suspense as everyone knows the ending. As for the storyline what Jackson did was a disgrace. He robbed other movies and tried to do one better. The Skull Island scene was preposterous. There were more plot holes than Carter has little liver pills. Basically what you are advocating is checking your brains in at the door. The audience I saw it with was booing and screaming Refund when they were not walking out. This terrible version of Kong was worse than the 1976 remake and I for one did not think that was possible. Jack Black is one dimensional and was awful as well as being miscast. The movie was about 2 hours too long and the boring first hour set up nothing. Can anyone tell us how the Big Ape was transported on the little broken down boat back to NYC. After all he couldn't fit down into the hull, was too big for the cages and how did they keep him locked up without destroying the boat? This is the same Kong who destroyed NY on cue without doing so at the rehersals for the big Broadway spectacular in 1933 Depression NY. By the way then how come everyone had a tuxedo on? And do people go out in the snow without a coat in a spring dress with high heels on? Please this movie is a disaster movie all right but for all the wrong reasons. A perfect 10? You're either dreaming or had a lobotomy?… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

10

JoshK.Jan 2, 2006

Simply amazing. One of the best, if not the best film this year.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

DennisB.Jan 1, 2006

what makes this movie great is also what most detractors are complaining about; it is a non-stop onslaught of adrenaline. there are, in fact, reports of people coming out of the theatres feeling physically exhausted, not bored or tired, what makes this movie great is also what most detractors are complaining about; it is a non-stop onslaught of adrenaline. there are, in fact, reports of people coming out of the theatres feeling physically exhausted, not bored or tired, EXHAUSTED. nobody who gives this movie a "5" or lower rating can even be taken seriously here, as anybody who knows anything about filmmaking can tell you that the special effects alone are revolutionary and deserving of respect. naomi watts is beautiful and engaging, showing incredible skill considering much of her scenes were shot against blue screen. jack black shows charming restraint in his subtle villainy, and adrien brody is an understated leading man who comes across as a real human, not cut from the typical action hero mold. simply stated: this is a great film that will be remembered as a classic in the vain of "raiders of the lost arc," "titanic," and the original "star wars" trilogy. the question potential viewers need to ask themselves is, "can i handle a marathon that feels more like a sprint?"… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

AnnalisaJan 1, 2006

While there were great suspense gasping-for-air, mind blowingstuff happening in the movie, it was way too long - from getting to the island to being on the island. I was like "Hurry up and get to New York already!!"- Animal attacks overdone, While there were great suspense gasping-for-air, mind blowingstuff happening in the movie, it was way too long - from getting to the island to being on the island. I was like "Hurry up and get to New York already!!"- Animal attacks overdone, and by the time he was on top of the tower, it was like "kill him already". There could have been more deleted scenes.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

HadenJan 1, 2006

This is an amateur production not worthy of your time nor money. This should have come out on April 1st. It's a joke.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

DavidR.Jan 1, 2006

This movie is an oppressive three hours of cinematic effects, and noise. Just further proof that Hollywood is not only lacking in originality, but is increasingly throwing computer generated effects at the hoi poloi. This is more proof that This movie is an oppressive three hours of cinematic effects, and noise. Just further proof that Hollywood is not only lacking in originality, but is increasingly throwing computer generated effects at the hoi poloi. This is more proof that real art (in the movies) in Holloywood is dead. All we get anymore, so it seems, is noise and excitement. If you want real art, go and see live theater. At least you can see some talent.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

SybelzJJan 1, 2006

What he said. Scandalously bad. All these 10/10's are further evidence that metacritic is full of corrupt publicists and PR companies doing what they do best, which is deceive the public. For shame.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JembleC.Jan 1, 2006

Horrendous.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JimG.Jan 1, 2006

It

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

FredG.Jan 1, 2006

A little too long, and parts of it were unnecessarily drawn out (esp. near the end) - but as a remake scenes in this were just incredible to watch. It would have been perfect if he had saved some of the extended scenes for the DVD and cut A little too long, and parts of it were unnecessarily drawn out (esp. near the end) - but as a remake scenes in this were just incredible to watch. It would have been perfect if he had saved some of the extended scenes for the DVD and cut the movie shorter.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

SammyZeeJan 1, 2006

Pretty damn good. no wonder it was one of the most expensive moves ever made. one word: Wow.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

TedJan 1, 2006

What an absolute disaster...

0 of 0 users found this helpful

King Kong

User Reviews