King Kong

10

WilliamT.Dec 23, 2005

The new David Lean has arrived. What a movie... greatest love story since Dr Zhivago.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

LynnW.Dec 22, 2005

I'm a huge Peter Jackson fan, but this movie was exhausting. You just couldn't wait for it to be over. I found myself muttering "Die, already!" for the last half hour.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

SeanS.Dec 22, 2005

This movie is the worst movie I have seen since The Titanic was released.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

RVVenDec 22, 2005

Worst of the 3 Kong films. Useless reimagning, endless sweeping shots, heavy handed acting, horrible editing, etc...

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

BrianC.Dec 22, 2005

Kong rocked. If you didnt like it, that's fine, but realize you are in the minority. I like the fact that Peter Jackson cares about building a story, the characters, plot etc. Holiday, your rating of 0 seems a bit churlish. If you Kong rocked. If you didnt like it, that's fine, but realize you are in the minority. I like the fact that Peter Jackson cares about building a story, the characters, plot etc. Holiday, your rating of 0 seems a bit churlish. If you didn't realize the campiness was intentional and designed as part of the characters before they are exposed to Kong, then maybe you shouldn't be throwing out spurious reviews. Ignore the haters, and see this for yourself.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

BillyS.Dec 22, 2005

Take a classic 1933 film, add a 200 million dollar f/x budget to the same story and characters and what do you get? Jurrasic Park with a monkey. A big, bombastic bore of blockbuster proportions!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

DonM.Dec 22, 2005

Terrible, unoriginal and 2 1/2 hours too long.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

EvanS.Dec 22, 2005

What this movie needs is a fewer bugs, less budget and more focus on the engaging story about beauty and the beast. This egofest could have easily been drawn to two hours, but we're forced to wade through the silly and weary build-up What this movie needs is a fewer bugs, less budget and more focus on the engaging story about beauty and the beast. This egofest could have easily been drawn to two hours, but we're forced to wade through the silly and weary build-up aboard the Venture and a trip through Jurassic Park (Hey Jackson, Spielberg took us here already). This movie is designed beautifully and it's almost worth it to see the monkey rip up New York City, but I couldn't help see Jackson as the 800-pound gorilla who tosses his weight around and spending a grotesque sum to make a so-so movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

HolidayDocDec 22, 2005

Nothing can save this movie. It is so campy and bad that it is truly awful. All you people giving this movie high marks report to the hospital to schedule your lobotomy as you have lost your minds. If this movie is nominated for anything Nothing can save this movie. It is so campy and bad that it is truly awful. All you people giving this movie high marks report to the hospital to schedule your lobotomy as you have lost your minds. If this movie is nominated for anything other than special effects it would be a disgrace to the Academy. This is as bad as it gets and three excruciating hours long to boot. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

CameronS.Dec 22, 2005

It's not often that I vote something this highly, but King Kong is EASILY the film of the year. Fantastic effects, gripping screenplay, beatutifully directed, phenomenal cast (give Andy Serkis an Oscar now) and gripping for every one of It's not often that I vote something this highly, but King Kong is EASILY the film of the year. Fantastic effects, gripping screenplay, beatutifully directed, phenomenal cast (give Andy Serkis an Oscar now) and gripping for every one of its 187 minutes. I quote from Empire here, but the statement "what could have been Jackson… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

RickS.Dec 22, 2005

This is a stunning re-telling of the classic story. Peter Jackson is by far the most accomplished visual effects storyteller to date. He makes fantasy a visual reality.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

DustinW.Dec 22, 2005

Best movie of the year! It deserves to win Best Picture at the oscars!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

WalkerR.Dec 22, 2005

Big effects, little substance. I forgot about the film as soon as I left the theater. The problem with these effects driven movies is they rely way to much on the CGI. Use it wisely my son. They lose their effect. I eventually became bored. Big effects, little substance. I forgot about the film as soon as I left the theater. The problem with these effects driven movies is they rely way to much on the CGI. Use it wisely my son. They lose their effect. I eventually became bored. Kong himself was good. But not enough to save the film. On top of that, its about 30 mins too long. Certaninly no LOTR. Peace out.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

CKongDec 22, 2005

Very entertaining movie experience - some parts better then others - but well worth the money - Peter Jackson could make a movie about a lump of poo interesting.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

steveDec 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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

GarethD.Dec 22, 2005

Didn't seem like 3 hours.....entertaining viewing.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

AnthonyS.Dec 22, 2005

One of the best blockbusters i have seen in recent memory. i mean sure its flawed, but i was never bored through out the 3 hours, which says something. now only jackson did a tighter edit, then we have a true action masterpiece!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

IssacDec 21, 2005

Moronic. NO one could make a movie this bad? Welcome Peter Jackson to the Steven Speilberg George Lucas over the hill club. This movie is an abomination. Anyone giving this movie over a 3 needs to report to surgery to have a lobotomy. You Moronic. NO one could make a movie this bad? Welcome Peter Jackson to the Steven Speilberg George Lucas over the hill club. This movie is an abomination. Anyone giving this movie over a 3 needs to report to surgery to have a lobotomy. You are definitely brain dead from the neck up.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

KingityKongityDec 21, 2005

Pros: fun, exciting, suspensful, great ending cons: somewhat overlong, gets little boring near the end overview: for those who have not seen the original, then the ending, the films only flaw, may seem exciting. Those who know what will Pros: fun, exciting, suspensful, great ending cons: somewhat overlong, gets little boring near the end overview: for those who have not seen the original, then the ending, the films only flaw, may seem exciting. Those who know what will happen, get ready for monotony.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

DaveF.Dec 21, 2005

Nothing short of spectacular! Though not normally prone to online ratings, I thought I would step in on Kong's behalf to try and dispel some of the lesser than worthy user ratings. Yes, the acting is over-the-top and the story Nothing short of spectacular! Though not normally prone to online ratings, I thought I would step in on Kong's behalf to try and dispel some of the lesser than worthy user ratings. Yes, the acting is over-the-top and the story implausible - just like the original. Jackson has reinvented a long lost genre of film-making that also includes a blend of modern greats such as Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, and of-course Lord of the Rings. The action causes you to jump from your and the story makes sure you stay in it. Finally, yes, the movie is 3 hours long. So were all three Lord of the Rings. If you have a difficult time sitting in a theater for such a length, wait for it on DVD and enjoy it then...when you can pause it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

WAKOJAKODec 21, 2005

Holy sh.t! The new master of cinema has done it again. And how!!! I have not been as scared, awed, moved to tears and so thoroughly entertained since...well, the Lord of the Rings movies. If this film is not nominated for a Best Picture Holy sh.t! The new master of cinema has done it again. And how!!! I have not been as scared, awed, moved to tears and so thoroughly entertained since...well, the Lord of the Rings movies. If this film is not nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award, I may just stop watching that damned show. Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis also deserve acting nominations.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JoshDec 21, 2005

This was far from a classic movie, but in terms of sheer energy and adventure it is quite successful. The haters seem to take it waaaaay too seriously. It's a blockheaded popcorn flick and if you put it up against others of the same This was far from a classic movie, but in terms of sheer energy and adventure it is quite successful. The haters seem to take it waaaaay too seriously. It's a blockheaded popcorn flick and if you put it up against others of the same ilk, it comes out way ahead. I am not a Peter Jackson lover and was never particularly blown away by any of the LOTR movies. His special effects ranged from bad to brilliant and the characters were never really that compelling, and all of this is no different in King Kong. It was long and, at times, relentless in terms of bombastic action, but it 's an epic 30's movie (narrative and morals) filmed with modern technology and it all fits. Don't take it so seriously. Watch it for what it is. Try not to think about it too much and save all that effort for a movie that actually needs it. King Kong is pure escapist entertainment with plenty of flaws, but so what? Couldn't you spend your time better ripping Aeon Flux or any number of truly bad Hollywood "Blockbuster" material?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

TheProfitcyDec 21, 2005

If you like your action dumb, with all the chest banging, tribal stereotyping and logic destroying fun of the "old time" classics, you'll still find this movie, dumb, ignorant and pukifying. So excuse me, I must go puke just thinking If you like your action dumb, with all the chest banging, tribal stereotyping and logic destroying fun of the "old time" classics, you'll still find this movie, dumb, ignorant and pukifying. So excuse me, I must go puke just thinking about this piece of trash.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

JackDeftDec 21, 2005

Simply brilliant tear jerking worth ur ticket price beautiful cast colossal cgi effects lovely score heart breaking love story tragic ending.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

NotfamousDaveDec 21, 2005

I made the mistake of taking a date on the first Friday this movie came out. Boy was that a bad idea. An hour into it, the poor woman (3rd date) was looking over at me like I was nuts. Fortunately, by the time we got to the ridiculous I made the mistake of taking a date on the first Friday this movie came out. Boy was that a bad idea. An hour into it, the poor woman (3rd date) was looking over at me like I was nuts. Fortunately, by the time we got to the ridiculous brontasaurus stampede and the humongous cockroaches the movie transcended bad and became all-out camp, a total joke. We couldn't stop muttering and laughing for the remaining couple hours. We made the most of it, but this is one of the worst movies of all time, I think.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

SchpilkyBlueyDec 21, 2005

The best movie I have seen a long while.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

AnnN.Dec 21, 2005

I'll start out by saying that the T-Rex fight was a bit much, yes. But other than that, this movie was everything it should have been. I believe that you can tell when a film is good if you can understand the relationships between the I'll start out by saying that the T-Rex fight was a bit much, yes. But other than that, this movie was everything it should have been. I believe that you can tell when a film is good if you can understand the relationships between the characters even without sound, and you can easily do that here. It was a great update, filled with emotion and- as every good monster movie should be- a reflection on humanity. It's an old story, but that doesn't mean it's not a good one.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

ScottC.Dec 21, 2005

Simply mundane.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

BrianJ.Dec 21, 2005

Amazing...This is why I love movies.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

RaulJ.Dec 21, 2005

Old fashioned blockbuster entertainment. Yes, it may be a bit over-done in certain ways, but this does not hurt the movie. I do sypathize with those who say there are too many effects and too little heart. I would revise that to say over the Old fashioned blockbuster entertainment. Yes, it may be a bit over-done in certain ways, but this does not hurt the movie. I do sypathize with those who say there are too many effects and too little heart. I would revise that to say over the top effects and marginal character development. Overall, very good entertainment.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

BennyB.Dec 21, 2005

A great movie that is perhaps a bit too drawn out. All the Skull Island sections are strong, the build-up sections in NY are good, but the NY sections with Kong at the end are a bit weak at times and felt drawn out. 3/4 of an hour could have A great movie that is perhaps a bit too drawn out. All the Skull Island sections are strong, the build-up sections in NY are good, but the NY sections with Kong at the end are a bit weak at times and felt drawn out. 3/4 of an hour could have been shaved off this.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

JoeyM.Dec 21, 2005

For once, an action movie gets it write. Jackson and his writing team spend enough time on developing the characters for us to actually care about them. When they start to meet their inevitable tragic ends, they aren't just For once, an action movie gets it write. Jackson and his writing team spend enough time on developing the characters for us to actually care about them. When they start to meet their inevitable tragic ends, they aren't just stereotypical "Red Shirts" (to use the Star Trek term) but people we've grown to like. Kong is terrific. He has a fully realized personality and - since Jackson urges you to look at the subtext of the story - you will notice that there is an extra layer of tragedy to the great ape. All the performances are top notch (though, I suppose, if you hate Jack Black, you will hate him in this - I happen to like Jack Black, so there you go). As for the action sequences, the "Kong fights T-Rexes in the vines" sequence is one of the most exciting I've seen in years. Terrific movie and a must see on the big screen.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

I'mSorryMsJacksonDec 21, 2005

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

10

I'mSorryMsJacksonDec 21, 2005

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

6

RicardoC.Dec 20, 2005

Not a bad movie, but overrated in every sense. I just didn't feel that it was THAT good of a movie. Peter Jackson is still one of my favorite directors, but the only thing I really really liked were the expressive eyes of King Kong and Not a bad movie, but overrated in every sense. I just didn't feel that it was THAT good of a movie. Peter Jackson is still one of my favorite directors, but the only thing I really really liked were the expressive eyes of King Kong and the nice vistas of the Skull Island!!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

KingBongDec 20, 2005

Peter Jackson is completely untalented, plain and simple. I swear almost ANYONE, you, me, any other director working today (even Uwe Boll!) could make the same, if not better, movie than this if given 2 batrillion kajillion bucks or whatever Peter Jackson is completely untalented, plain and simple. I swear almost ANYONE, you, me, any other director working today (even Uwe Boll!) could make the same, if not better, movie than this if given 2 batrillion kajillion bucks or whatever he was given. This is the same old big budget blockbuster tripe, where everything is generic and seems to have been done thousands of times before. There's nothing distinctive in this movie except, of course, for the bad acting, pacing, action, and logic. It's too bad... had this not been done in the digital era (where bad special effects are only nauseating and jerky, and not silly and charming), not taken itself so damn seriously, and most of all wasn't a 3 mind crushing hours long, this could make a fine addition next to Plan Nine, Bride of the Monster and other classics of laughably, wonderfully bad cinema. Too bad it's not, and this is just merely godawful. Avoid, obviously.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

FreddyA.Dec 20, 2005

Simply brilliant.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

SteveC.Dec 20, 2005

Yeah its long in strange places, short in others, but still a fantastic movie . CG were good to excellent, acting a bit cheesy at times (Black, Watts at the start) but why do we go to movies? to analyse or be entertained? hmmm...

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

FatimaI.Dec 20, 2005

The movie was the second best movie I ever saw. at the end the movie was so sad. everyone in my family saw it and they all said it was the best movie ever.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

GaryF.Dec 20, 2005

Are you kidding me? Refund! This is about the lamest alleged blockbuster I have ever seen. It is boring and without dialogue. The actors especially Jack Black are simply awful. And the middle part in Jurassic Park land are you kidding. Are you kidding me? Refund! This is about the lamest alleged blockbuster I have ever seen. It is boring and without dialogue. The actors especially Jack Black are simply awful. And the middle part in Jurassic Park land are you kidding. Invisible machine gun bullets. T-Rex's hanging from a vine doing their impersonation of the WWF and those natives in blackpaint? C'mon give me a break. The story was totally implausible. Do you think Peter Jackson went to Steven Spielberg and said I can make a moron movie worse than War Of the Freakin Worlds? Let me tell you it is very close to that abomination. People were booing and laughing and then walking out of the theater. And don't bother coming during the first seventy minutes unless of course you need to catch up on your sleep. This is a disaster beyond all imagination.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

StevenS.Dec 20, 2005

Well, let's get this right out of the way first thing. Peter Jackson is one of the most untalented, overrated directors around. You'd think that after hits like The Terminal, War of the Worlds, and the upcoming Munich he'd Well, let's get this right out of the way first thing. Peter Jackson is one of the most untalented, overrated directors around. You'd think that after hits like The Terminal, War of the Worlds, and the upcoming Munich he'd have learned that to try and rip off other, more superior directors just doesn't work. That 200- million he was given to make this movie could have really made an incredible work of art had it fallen into the hands of a more visionary, talented director... just saying. My advice: stay far away from the smell of rotten bananas and gorilla butt that's wafting out of the thater right now and rent some real works of art, like Jurassic Park, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or ET. Or wait and go see Munich when it comes to theaters... that's gonna be an awesome one!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

RostokovDec 20, 2005

Unlike some of the other negative reviewers here, I believe that a great film of the Kong story could have been made with today's means, its just that Peter Jackson isn't the man to do it. Has no one noticed that he has little Unlike some of the other negative reviewers here, I believe that a great film of the Kong story could have been made with today's means, its just that Peter Jackson isn't the man to do it. Has no one noticed that he has little effective control of the medium? He cuts too much, he throws the camera around illogically, and his sense of character is immature. Although Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody and Andy Serkis are fine, the rest of the cast are unconvincing, and are further undermined by banal dialogue and quick-cutting. A few action sequences are moderately entertaining through sheer unrelenting excess, but are poor relatives to Spielberg's work. Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds may have their flaws but they ably demonstrate how to involve and excite the audience with expert shot selection, action choreography and modulation of tempo. Peter Jackson has not achieved such mastery. He has too few tricks and too much money to throw at the screen. Shame, cos he looks like a nice enough bloke.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

JoshC.Dec 20, 2005

The best film of the year by far. It deserves alot of credit (especially to Watts, Jackson, Serkis, Black and the effects team) Over all this movie is amazing. The sheer size and scope of it breathtaking and it has some of the best action The best film of the year by far. It deserves alot of credit (especially to Watts, Jackson, Serkis, Black and the effects team) Over all this movie is amazing. The sheer size and scope of it breathtaking and it has some of the best action sequences and set pieces ever put on film. The effects were awesome. A bit fake in some parts but Kong looks about as real as they come. For those who did not like it I reccomend seeing it twice because when you see it a second time you have no hopes you just go to enjoy it and trust me the second time is alot better then the first.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

StacyR.Dec 20, 2005

A total bore. Worst of all, the bore goes on for three hours. Nothing in this movie is unique or hasn't been seen before countless times in other faux-adventure tales. Rent Jurassic Park or the original King Kong for something that A total bore. Worst of all, the bore goes on for three hours. Nothing in this movie is unique or hasn't been seen before countless times in other faux-adventure tales. Rent Jurassic Park or the original King Kong for something that won't put you to sleep.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

TomB.Dec 20, 2005

This could have easily been a big disappointment for me as I am such a big fan of the original 1933 film. Face it; When you go remaking such a classic you are playing with fire. Peter Jackson has cited the original Kong as a major This could have easily been a big disappointment for me as I am such a big fan of the original 1933 film. Face it; When you go remaking such a classic you are playing with fire. Peter Jackson has cited the original Kong as a major inspiration to him one which lead him into film making and has stated that he wanted to bring the beloved story to the younger generation which is reluctant to watch old movies. He has said that he wanted to use modern effects and technology to tell the story and bring some freshness to it while retaining spirit of the original. I think he succeeded. I want to say right up front that the ads and trailers for the movie really don't do the CGI effects justice. I really expected the giant gorilla to look a bit like a character from a video game ala Jar Jar Binks or The Hulk but the effects are very believable and really do set a new standard in terms of intermixing computer generated characters with live ones. The few changes Jackson made don't take away from the original characters or the plot at all, in fact, they enhance them; The heroine, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), and the fast talking Carl Denham (Jack Black) are given back stories which explain some of their motivations and I felt they were nice touches. I only have a few very small criticisms of the film and they primarily revolve around scenes that are either too long or unnecessary. Jackson could have easily trimmed 20 minutes or so out of the 3+ hours and I think the movie would have been better for it. Still, this is as good of a remake as I've ever seen. As with Sam Raimi and the Spiderman films, Peter Jackson has demonstrated what a difference it makes when director has a true love of the source material he is working from.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

BillS.Dec 20, 2005

Best movie ever made. Let me go down in history as being the fist to have said this. This is one of cinema's oldest stories and PeterJackson's retelling of it is virtually flawless. Seeing it on the big screen is an epic experience Best movie ever made. Let me go down in history as being the fist to have said this. This is one of cinema's oldest stories and PeterJackson's retelling of it is virtually flawless. Seeing it on the big screen is an epic experience that even Lucas' recent Star Wars films could not rival.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

WarmongerDec 20, 2005

A very impressive and totally enjoyable experience!!... if you are in any way a fan of the classic King Kong, then you will appreciate this version as well. It elaborates on so many aspects of the originall...Don't listen to the nay A very impressive and totally enjoyable experience!!... if you are in any way a fan of the classic King Kong, then you will appreciate this version as well. It elaborates on so many aspects of the originall...Don't listen to the nay sayers who probably liked the original about as much as they liked this version!!! it's a great flim, destined to become another King Kong classic!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

GeorgeR.Dec 20, 2005

It would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except forIt would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except for the stunning scene atop the empire state building (i've never been more afraid of heights - praise to the background artists), there was no motivation to make this movie again. kong still moves like the stop-motion animated creature from the 30's (too sharply or too laboriously), naomi watts looks like a bucktoothed flatchested hillbilly, and kong is kong is kong - no new insights. why were all these non-elements worth three hours of my life? if for whatever reason i ever taught a class in editing at an elementary school i would assign students this movie and ask them to make a one hour and 50 minute version. it would undoubtedly take them all of a half hour to do so. what were the filmmaker$ thinking?… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful

0

TomP.Dec 20, 2005

King Kong is truly remarkable in how horrific a production it is. I go to movies with mixed reviews generally with the hope that it may provice different meanings to different people, in other words, it is open to interpretation. No. There King Kong is truly remarkable in how horrific a production it is. I go to movies with mixed reviews generally with the hope that it may provice different meanings to different people, in other words, it is open to interpretation. No. There was nothing to this movie beyond action that suddenly and inexplicably grinds to a halt time and time again, followed endlessly by another dinosaur, spider, or any number of conveniently-placed CGI-disasters approaching silently and unnoticed from behind. But this movie saddens me the most simply because I have remained earnestly and reasonably unconvinced of the elitist notion that the public was completely diluted and that everyone is essentially an idiot beyond ourselves. Well, congrats, American public, you have lost the faith of yet another in your approval of this film, and thanks Peter Jackson, for making me realize I actualy am smarter and less dim-witted than 90% of movie-goers today. You scammed me good with this one, got my $6.25 and the rest of the good people's in my theater. I feel that the only reason that more viewers didn't walk out of this movie besides me and my best friend was because it is unfortunately slightly embarrassing and, yes, "elitist", to throw up your hands in disgust in the middle of a movie theater and promtly leave. I used to firmly believe that ALL people were more complex that they first seem. Statistical discrimination, I guess, is justified.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful

3

MikeG.Dec 20, 2005

A big disappointment, especially for a movie that did a great job of ratcheting up the tension in the first hour or so of the movie. Jackson also made 1932 NYC look spectacular, gave motivation to Black, Watts and the rest of the cast. A big disappointment, especially for a movie that did a great job of ratcheting up the tension in the first hour or so of the movie. Jackson also made 1932 NYC look spectacular, gave motivation to Black, Watts and the rest of the cast. Suddenly, the movie morphed into a B-picture, complete with action movie cliche after action movie cliche that just made the audience squirm and groan. The movie looks great, but it just felt long and ultimately boring. Why make this movie if all you're going to do is modernize the special effects? The story of man's inhumanity to beast is lost somewhere along the way here, resulting in nothing more than a technically spectacular director flexing his muscle. We all know Jackson can make a movie look great. Somehow, after his masterpiece "Return of the King", I was expecting so much more.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful

10

JamesM.Dec 20, 2005

To say that this film is a masterpiece is an understatement. King Kong has a sense of majesty and wonder that you will not experience for a very long time, so make sure you see it. Also, all of those people who are saying it is too long To say that this film is a masterpiece is an understatement. King Kong has a sense of majesty and wonder that you will not experience for a very long time, so make sure you see it. Also, all of those people who are saying it is too long obviously have attention spans that are far too short. These are probably the same people that said Pulp Fiction had too much talking or The Godfather didn't have enough action.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

RahulP.Dec 20, 2005

This is no Titanic or even compares to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Peter Jackson's last directorial effort. However, as a stand alone, ambitious project that it was, it nearly delivers. Some plot holes are exposed, but then again, This is no Titanic or even compares to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Peter Jackson's last directorial effort. However, as a stand alone, ambitious project that it was, it nearly delivers. Some plot holes are exposed, but then again, with a Gorilla as the main character, that's a given. The sets, production design and the cinematography are amazing. Kong on top of the Empire State Building is an amazing scene...King Kong itself is realized in amazing detail, however, the dinosaurs and the bugs and creatures of Skull Island I didn't see the reason for. The Captain of the ship, the stowaway kid and the first mate all had character development in the first hour, but you didn't really care and then I think PJ forgot about them as well :-) Naomi Watts was good, Jack Black was amazing as a mad director willing to stake everything on the line and Adrien Brody might as well have sleep-walked through the movie. Some silly sequences, notably the fight with the dinosaurs and the ice-skating scene! In the end, I compare this to Titanic and you realize that the reason Titanic was such a monster hit was because you cared for the characters and CGI/special effects were part of the movie, not the stars. King Kong was spectacular in the CGI/special effects, but lacked credibility in story realization and the character development. I didn't really care about King Kong in the end as he plunges to his death as I cared for what happened to Jack and Rose on the Titanic...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

IGiveUpDec 20, 2005

I give up. I truly do. The professional critics had to be bought and paid to give the fabulous reviews they gave. Let me set the record straight. This is a total bomb. A remake with heart and soul. There is little if any meaningful dialogue I give up. I truly do. The professional critics had to be bought and paid to give the fabulous reviews they gave. Let me set the record straight. This is a total bomb. A remake with heart and soul. There is little if any meaningful dialogue and the entire movie is without substance. Jack Black is simply awful. Adrian Brody is totally miscast. As for the story it unravels way too long and is quite frankly boring. There is no suspense as we all know the story. And how was KONG the only gorilla on the island when every other species was tenfold. Does it make sense that KONG the master of the island and the only one with intelligence was the last of his species. And how did the natives build the great wall without being eaten alive? And since the natives sacrificed women to KONG to be eaten how come they did nothing to save him when he was knocked out by the mildest form of anesthesia from one small bottle of chloroform in a wide open environment. It wouldn't put us to sleep let alone a 25 foot 4 ton gorilla. As for the small damaged ship and taking KONG back to NYC without him destroying the ship, well pehaps he took in the rays while laying on a chaise lounge with hot babe Naomi Watts by his side? This story was absolutely preposterous. You would have to have the brain of an amoeba to believe any of this crap. Avoid this turkey at all costs. Gobble -Gobble.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

PcFanDec 20, 2005

Very entaining movie very polished and keeps you entertained from start to finish. only a complete idiot who has nothing better to do would give this movie a 3/10.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

MickDec 19, 2005

Visually Stunning, but too long and drawn out in places.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

LanceD.Dec 19, 2005

Peter Jackson comes up with some great creatures on the island but it just takes them too long to get there (1hour 10 mins). Show up late and you'll enjoy this movie immensely.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

SethB.Dec 19, 2005

"Is this an adventure story"? "No, It isn't" This dialougue is very telling of the movie and explains the length of this movie. I always respect movies being two in one-one for the popcorn crowd and another for the thinkers. Still this "Is this an adventure story"? "No, It isn't" This dialougue is very telling of the movie and explains the length of this movie. I always respect movies being two in one-one for the popcorn crowd and another for the thinkers. Still this is very difficult to do (think "Signs") and produces a mediocre story, as it has here. Why does Kong want the damsel? Is he stupid? I notice the island is curiously free of other apes, why? Then Kong would have company and would not need a human. Oh yeah, and none of the natives would do. It had to be a white woman. Go Hollywood!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

InsanelySaneDec 19, 2005

This film.... ...deserves some credit for the sheer amount of work put into the mostly pointless CGI... I cannot think of an appropriate metaphor to describe the torture I had gone through sitting in the cinema - with insulting action This film.... ...deserves some credit for the sheer amount of work put into the mostly pointless CGI... I cannot think of an appropriate metaphor to describe the torture I had gone through sitting in the cinema - with insulting action sequences and hollow, shallow attempts at immersing a sense of wonder which made me, I swear on this, feel ill and depressed when the nightmare finally ended.. I find it ridiculous how technology excuses much of what should not be allowed to be excused!! - Some vague attempt at emotion used in CGI DOES NOT WARRANT comments that say that this is an emotional film or that it has depth and character. For those who dont pick up on shallowness and allow TOTALLY ILLOGICAL scenarios to unfold without wanting to shriek out in disgust that any sense of reality has been utterly suspended, I challenge you all to give reasons for your satisfaction with this drawn out and melodramatic film. The pain of sitting through a transparent, cliched and sour script where every potential for emotion had to be spelt out and every action explained, killed any sense of mystery or identification with the characters, the time period or the anticipation for adventure.. argh yet again I cant stand writing my own review it gets me so angry!! why do these films have to be so safe and so freakin dumbed down?!?! its sad and perhaps its my fault and I should retreat back to my fantasy world where risk is a necessary means to allowing the imagination to evolve..… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

9

ShariN.Dec 19, 2005

This was a great film!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

RandyP.Dec 19, 2005

I'm sure it's a 9 or a 10 in regards to this film as being a 'remake' but as a film in itself it really is way too long and somewhat boring. The movie completely falls flat in the middle of the confrontation between Kong I'm sure it's a 9 or a 10 in regards to this film as being a 'remake' but as a film in itself it really is way too long and somewhat boring. The movie completely falls flat in the middle of the confrontation between Kong and the dinosuars. I think that the 1st hour of the movie was excellent but after some time you realize that this film has absolutely nothing left to give for another 2 hours. I was really disappointed when I had left the theatre.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

MitchellF.Dec 19, 2005

King Kong, a story of a giant ape who falls for a sweet little girl. Fantastic. This movie delivers fantastic special effects, great acting (I believed that Mrs. Watts was with Kong) and 3 hours of non-stop, eye-catching action. Who would King Kong, a story of a giant ape who falls for a sweet little girl. Fantastic. This movie delivers fantastic special effects, great acting (I believed that Mrs. Watts was with Kong) and 3 hours of non-stop, eye-catching action. Who would have thought that Jack Black could have done such a wonderful job at acting serious. In reviews I see people basing their marks on the fact that is a remake. I myself have never seen the origional movie, so I could watch this movie without that thought. And wow. The only thing about this movie that bugged me, were the bugs. Oh, and director Peter Jackson tended to use some of the same tactics as he used in Lord of the Rings.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

JemT.Dec 19, 2005

This is a Peter Jackson wet dream, and an extremely disappointing film. I would recommend NOT seeing it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

JonB.Dec 19, 2005

Rarely has a movie impressed me as much as Kong has. I expected very little from the trailers. But what about good initial reviews? I was conflicted. Cynical. Three hours later, I felt like a fool for ever doubting Peter Jackson. True, some Rarely has a movie impressed me as much as Kong has. I expected very little from the trailers. But what about good initial reviews? I was conflicted. Cynical. Three hours later, I felt like a fool for ever doubting Peter Jackson. True, some people might not care much for special effects, or a fantastic story that teems with incredible, unbelievable parts. If Kong's not your cup of tea, then grade it lower. But, even those for whose fancies are left untickled by this movie have to settle at an 8, 7 on a bad day, for the craft and work as a whole. 95% solid dialogue (Star Wars shoots under 30%), phenomenal acting, wonderful shots, great character development, and a love story that doesn't seem forced. Hate if you want, but you're fooling yourself. Kong's great.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

RussellP.Dec 19, 2005

Way too long. The length of this film makes it lose some of it s flavor. The King Kong CG was incredible, but some of the other CG stunk. And, while a 25 foot gorilla is hard to believe, there are some things in the movie that are way out Way too long. The length of this film makes it lose some of it s flavor. The King Kong CG was incredible, but some of the other CG stunk. And, while a 25 foot gorilla is hard to believe, there are some things in the movie that are way out there (like humans punching dinosaurs in the face and jungle vines holding the weight of a t-rex). I felt frustrated more than amazed after watching this film. It needed to be about 45 minutes shorter. It drags.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

LeoDec 19, 2005

This is one of the best films I've ever seen, a classic.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

ToddG.Dec 19, 2005

I would have given it a 6 were it not for both the heightened expectations and the potential it had. Like a few scenes in LOTR, some brilliant decisions and direction were drowned out either by absurdity or by monotony. Yes, even action I would have given it a 6 were it not for both the heightened expectations and the potential it had. Like a few scenes in LOTR, some brilliant decisions and direction were drowned out either by absurdity or by monotony. Yes, even action sequences can be monotonous when they aren't connected to the plot and go on for too long. There was a story in there, and there were some interesting characters. But what was the point of the bugs or the chase scene in NYC? How did anyone know where they were going? etc etc etc. If you're going to try to make a movie with depth, make sure it makes some sort of sense. Peter Jackson must have a split personality, because sometimes his decisions and direction are genius, other times he's a dolt.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

LordLusciousDec 19, 2005

Well, money doesn't buy everything. Jackson's "labor of love" cost about the amount of money that could feed every starving person in the world several times over. All this money is spent on cheap looking, stupid special effects. Well, money doesn't buy everything. Jackson's "labor of love" cost about the amount of money that could feed every starving person in the world several times over. All this money is spent on cheap looking, stupid special effects. It's fun to try and point out all the scenes where the actors are obviously looking at a green screen. "So you mean when this is done it'll look like I'm pointing at a Brontosaurus!?". The critics are absolutely crazy on this one, as if they've ony been allowed to watch big, stupid summer blockbusters their whole life and because this one shows a glimmer (a faint, faint, fake, cheap glimmer) of emotion behind all the lifeless CGI it must be one of the greatest movies ever. At least Catwoman and Herbie: Fully Loaded didn't take themselves so seriously and take an entire weekend to watch.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

LucasDec 19, 2005

Once again, here is a case of "what you bring to the movies is what you'll get out of them". If you are a racist, you'll see racist imagery in "King Kong" and chances are you find racism EVERYWHERE because you are a paranoid Once again, here is a case of "what you bring to the movies is what you'll get out of them". If you are a racist, you'll see racist imagery in "King Kong" and chances are you find racism EVERYWHERE because you are a paranoid psycho. If you suffer from impatience (or ADD), then the movie is too long, etc. As for the racism comment, I'd much rather enjoy a flight-o-fancy like "Kong" than another no-talent gang-banger-gone-rapper-gone-pseudoactor, any day! It's hilarious that certain people can find racism in a movie like "King Kong" yet, say absolutely nothing about the idiotic stereotypes found in hip-hop gang banger movies and video games...that's just my fifty-cents worth!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

ConnorDec 19, 2005

Anyone who would give less than an 8 is insane, this move far surpasses the other ones in many different ways. For one I thought I got to know the characters beter in this one than the other ones. Another the acting was so much better than Anyone who would give less than an 8 is insane, this move far surpasses the other ones in many different ways. For one I thought I got to know the characters beter in this one than the other ones. Another the acting was so much better than the other ones, And personally I felt that the 3 hours and 7 min. flow by, because I felt like I was in the movie following the characters paths and getting to know them, thats why i give it a 10.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

GalegraS.Dec 19, 2005

Wow, why remake a classic and destroy it with bad acting, worse dialogue and a dragging pointless plot. So what if there was alot of cool effects? Pretty much anyone can do that now.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

BenG.Dec 19, 2005

Okay, if you think that this movie is unrealistic, why did you go see it? You already know what it is about! If you look past the fact that it is unrealistic and the fact that it is too long, you'll see that the acting is awesome and Okay, if you think that this movie is unrealistic, why did you go see it? You already know what it is about! If you look past the fact that it is unrealistic and the fact that it is too long, you'll see that the acting is awesome and the effects rock! I loved this movie!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

SueD.Dec 19, 2005

Great effects muddled with excessive, self-indulgent, down-right silly action sequences. Good acting all the way around, until Jack Black plagues the screen with his amateurish bumbling. (Stick to slapstick and the bi-polar comedy Jack; you Great effects muddled with excessive, self-indulgent, down-right silly action sequences. Good acting all the way around, until Jack Black plagues the screen with his amateurish bumbling. (Stick to slapstick and the bi-polar comedy Jack; you may succeed in hiding your lack of talent). While a compelling fable, the characters are too flat for the story's attempt at depth. I mean really, a man removes insects from another man with a tommy gun flailing about in his arms. Peter Jackson needed to choose a genre and stick to it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

RichardADec 19, 2005

Too long. Intelligent use of visual effects. Mostly stupid characters and very shallow story. Questions: How was Kong transferred from Skull Island to New York? (This could have been an interesting part of the story.) Why wasn't The Ape Too long. Intelligent use of visual effects. Mostly stupid characters and very shallow story. Questions: How was Kong transferred from Skull Island to New York? (This could have been an interesting part of the story.) Why wasn't The Ape caged instead of being just chained? Why is the New York mayor so stupid to allow the show? How did Jack knew where Ann and Kong were sleeping? Why is Ann so stupid (or was she just crazy in love)? Mwahaha...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

MikeB.Dec 19, 2005

I would have loved to have given this movie a 10, but I couldn't. One of the biggest reason frankly was Jack Black. Why was he given such an important role? He is not a dramatic actor-it showed and it hurt the film terribly. Adrien I would have loved to have given this movie a 10, but I couldn't. One of the biggest reason frankly was Jack Black. Why was he given such an important role? He is not a dramatic actor-it showed and it hurt the film terribly. Adrien Brody seemed very unattached to this movie. Naomi Watts did do a good job though. This has always been a great story in my opinion. I think Jackson captured it as a tragedy instead of a monster movie and I think this is the essence of the film. I do think it is important that you like the premise of the movie to begin with. I think Jackson hit the target concerning Kong also. Kong was primarliy innocent and this played against man's greed, ego and ignorance is what makes this movie so moving. They did make Kong appear incredibly life like and gave him very real emotions and qualities. The play on the ice skating ring was a bit silly and pointless though. Some of the special effects and filming seemed to move too quickly and this made it hard to see all that was going on.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

RexDec 19, 2005

Peter Jackson says, "The original only had one dinosaur, so let's make it two! We need to be bigger, no ginormous compared to the first." The studio says "but three t-rex's will get more people in the seats, make it more . . Peter Jackson says, "The original only had one dinosaur, so let's make it two! We need to be bigger, no ginormous compared to the first." The studio says "but three t-rex's will get more people in the seats, make it more . . ."Peter Jackson interjects, … Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

VaibhavD.Dec 19, 2005

I went to watch this despite my rule to avoid $100 million plus extravaganzas. I was seduced by the critics surprisingly gushing response and had to overcome my own tepid feelings for the subject matter of the movie. In retrospect I greatly I went to watch this despite my rule to avoid $100 million plus extravaganzas. I was seduced by the critics surprisingly gushing response and had to overcome my own tepid feelings for the subject matter of the movie. In retrospect I greatly regretted this experience. The movie is abysmal and does not function at any level that is expected to be deeper than a video game. Apart from writing a review of the movie, someone needs to write a critical review of the reviews. How has this film achieved universal acclaim from professional critics? Did Jackson release two prints, one for the critics that was decent and one for the rest of us, that was abysmal? Or for some inexplicable reason, did the critics feel like they had to write the reviews they did. Most great films get better the more one thinks about them. This movie just seems worse and worse when you rewind it in your mind. The ape effects and Sirkis are good but you can see these parts in the free previews on the web. These brief moments simply (and not frequently enough) punctuate vast swathes of tedium and idiocy. I recommend that you avoid this movie at all costs.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

9

SharifDec 19, 2005

Very Good movie, I have no complaints about the length of the movie, since i liked it i dont see why i should'nt get more of what i like and make the most of my money, and it also sets the flow of the movie. while watching felt sorry Very Good movie, I have no complaints about the length of the movie, since i liked it i dont see why i should'nt get more of what i like and make the most of my money, and it also sets the flow of the movie. while watching felt sorry for Mr. Kong all the while telling him in my head Yeah budy women do that to you, they mess up your head and that is the end result.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

TedH.Dec 19, 2005

That was it? That is the flick that so many critics went bananas for? This is honestly nothing more than a rehashed Jurassic Park presentation, overlong with all of the director's leering shots of... Well... Nothing much at all. Entire That was it? That is the flick that so many critics went bananas for? This is honestly nothing more than a rehashed Jurassic Park presentation, overlong with all of the director's leering shots of... Well... Nothing much at all. Entire sub-plots are lost, the effects in many areas look unfinished, and the dialogue... Goodness, the dialogue. Stick with the original.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

BrianF.Dec 19, 2005

After months of awaiting this monster, I cannot express just how disappointing the final result has become. Nothing of value or innovation has been introduced in this $207 million picture, and that has to be the biggest surprise of all. After months of awaiting this monster, I cannot express just how disappointing the final result has become. Nothing of value or innovation has been introduced in this $207 million picture, and that has to be the biggest surprise of all. I've followed the production closely, and it all looked to add up to a complete tale, but turned into a figurehead of excess like the world of cinema hasn't seen all year. There are far too many good films coming out now to waste your time with the same-old same-old.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JackW.Dec 19, 2005

Ten? You are giving this movie a perfect ten? Are you brain dead. There is no originality as this is a remake of a remake. Hello but we all know that CGI is now available in the 21st century. So what was so great about three hours of torture Ten? You are giving this movie a perfect ten? Are you brain dead. There is no originality as this is a remake of a remake. Hello but we all know that CGI is now available in the 21st century. So what was so great about three hours of torture to its audience. Jack Black could act his way out of a paper bag. Adrian Brody had to cringe at the lines he had to deliver. As for plausability forget about it as if you wanted to believe any of this ridiculous storyline you had to check your brains in at the door. No wonder this film with all the hype only did sixty million in five days at the box office. Word of mouth will kill this film. I can guarantee that they will never recapture the $210 million they spent to make this in the US. Perhaps overseas but not here. Peter Jackson has now proven that he is a genius on the level of the no talent George Lucas variety and the fading very fast Mr. Spielberg vis-a-vis ridiculous War of The Worlds. This turkey is an absolute bomb. Avoid at all costs.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

StephenF.Dec 19, 2005

He grabbed a bird and held onto it as he fell! hahahahah. No way. What a piece of junk. "beautiful" that was hilarious! The guy swung from a vine with a machine gun. hahahaha.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

SuperseanDec 19, 2005

I ended up lauughing the whole time. This movie was so incredibly ridiculous, and then took itself seriously. It reminded me of doom, only doom didn't take it's self seriously. And the last line of the movie was sooooo lame. And I ended up lauughing the whole time. This movie was so incredibly ridiculous, and then took itself seriously. It reminded me of doom, only doom didn't take it's self seriously. And the last line of the movie was sooooo lame. And nothing made any sense. And the dinosaur fight was like WWE, hahahha this movie is hysterical it's so insanely ridiculous. See it once so you can laugh at it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

HopeI.Dec 19, 2005

Everything was perfect - except for the major flaw in every scene - it was too damn long !!! For god's sake - we get it already. What is wrong with this director - this was his same problem in Lord of the Rings. Back and forth on the Everything was perfect - except for the major flaw in every scene - it was too damn long !!! For god's sake - we get it already. What is wrong with this director - this was his same problem in Lord of the Rings. Back and forth on the same faces showing the same emotion....OK WE GET IT. My entire family - including two 13 year old boys both felt the same way.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

RonL.Dec 19, 2005

Go see this one on the biggest screen possible. This movie is great fun! It's the kind of fun going to the movies is all about. If anyone tries to shoot holes in this one then they went to Kong for the wrong reason. Not going to win an Go see this one on the biggest screen possible. This movie is great fun! It's the kind of fun going to the movies is all about. If anyone tries to shoot holes in this one then they went to Kong for the wrong reason. Not going to win an Oscar for screenpla,y but Art Direction without a doubt.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

NetraceDec 19, 2005

Great flick. I was riveted the entire time. I am able to do something called suspension of disbelief, so I didn't have the problem that most of the folks giving low ratings had. Thank you Mr. Jackson. And on a side note. I am not a Great flick. I was riveted the entire time. I am able to do something called suspension of disbelief, so I didn't have the problem that most of the folks giving low ratings had. Thank you Mr. Jackson. And on a side note. I am not a racist, nor did I notice any racist undertones. I would have to agree with the other poster that mentioned something to the effect that if you can see racism where it is not, then you are a racist. An ape is an ape. How often have you seen a white ape? Mr. Jackson could have changed it to a white ape and then made it King Abominable Snowman instead of King Kong. That would have made everything better right? You people crack me up.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

SeamusS.Dec 19, 2005

Okay, It Was Just That, Okay. It Left Me Feeling Sad Towards The End (Not IN The Way Clearly Intended by the tearfest). I Wish I Loved it, I wanted to, i just couldnt.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

MCDBDec 19, 2005

This film is is just great. The effects are incredible, the acting great. Serkis was brilliant as a gorrila and Black balanced funny and serious perfectly. However I do think it is racist. The view of "The native" dates back to the time of This film is is just great. The effects are incredible, the acting great. Serkis was brilliant as a gorrila and Black balanced funny and serious perfectly. However I do think it is racist. The view of "The native" dates back to the time of the book Robinson Crusoe, the idea was that if you were not Christian, you were some horrible cannableistic savage. However I do think it is possible that it was less a race thing, just the idea that this was a world still in the past, and it could be more era-bashing as opposed to racism. Apart from that, great.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JohntheCriticDec 18, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

BitBurnDec 18, 2005

It's hard too believe that this movie received scores lower than 6, I mean, come on people! Sure, romance is not for everybody but the special effects alone are worth a 6, minimum!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

KingKongDec 18, 2005

Come on guys. Be realistic. 0? 1? Give me a break. Why are people reviewing the movie out of context? "Its unrealistic" Since when is a 25 foot ape and a T-Rex fighting supposed to be realistic? If you want realism.... Go see murderball. Come on guys. Be realistic. 0? 1? Give me a break. Why are people reviewing the movie out of context? "Its unrealistic" Since when is a 25 foot ape and a T-Rex fighting supposed to be realistic? If you want realism.... Go see murderball. "Its racist". You almost need to BE racist to consider this racist. Is it racist when actual filmographers encounter undiscovered tribes and film them, because they're different from us? "Too long" This one i will give. Although it's not as TERRIBLY DRAWN OUT as all the 0 ratings say, there were scenes that were stretched. Which is why I give this film a 9. If it had the flow all the way through, a definite 10. The film had raw emotion. I could feel Watts and Kong's connection. Her torment over his capture and his rage, his panicked search through the streets to find his love. I can safely say it is one of my top three movies of the year. I highly recommend you disregard all scores, and make your own decision on the movie. Going into it with a "This movies gonna be overrated" point of view left me with a "Wow" at the end of it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

AdamBDec 18, 2005

Other movies can have dinosaurs besides Jurrasic Park people. Just like to make that clear for those who don't get the dinosaur part. Yes Peter Jackson is known for taking his time with a film and King Kong takes its time. It takes that Other movies can have dinosaurs besides Jurrasic Park people. Just like to make that clear for those who don't get the dinosaur part. Yes Peter Jackson is known for taking his time with a film and King Kong takes its time. It takes that extra minute or two with scenes to fully flesh them out, and they are well worth it. A great love story, some dialogue wooden, but overlooked in the grand scheme of things. Kong is amazing to look at and a nonstop thrill ride once you hit the Island. Some points in the plot like how they got kong to new york and why Naomi wasn't cold don't matter! I guess it's not realistic because Naomi didn't shiver or fall off at the top of the Empire State Building, but the movie is about a big ape who fights dinosaurs. Scary, funny, and an adrenline rush, Kong delivers on every level. A instant classic. And don't look for racism where isn't any.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

GeorgeJDec 18, 2005

OK, several someones are stuffing the ballot box with 10's.; there's no other explanation. In the first 30 minutes I was looking at my watch and debating what to have for dinner. Jackson has taken up the mantle of Lucas and is OK, several someones are stuffing the ballot box with 10's.; there's no other explanation. In the first 30 minutes I was looking at my watch and debating what to have for dinner. Jackson has taken up the mantle of Lucas and is prepared to offer us high tech movies with little story or dialogue.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JasonADec 18, 2005

First off, the movie is fun. So, for anyone to argue over whether some scenes are credible or not is moot. But the writing sucks, and i'll hold Peter Jackson accountable because his name is on the film. Also, Jackson should've First off, the movie is fun. So, for anyone to argue over whether some scenes are credible or not is moot. But the writing sucks, and i'll hold Peter Jackson accountable because his name is on the film. Also, Jackson should've trimmed the fat off of this film, it's a little to long. A half hour would suffice. As far as the actors, I hate Jack Black, for some reason he lends no credibility to the film. I know the role was to supposed to have some humor in it but Black's forte is physical humor this film didn't ask for that. Some of the dialogue is just painful like the scene in the diner between Anne and Black's character. While watching it, I thought John Waters would've been perfect for the role but surely he wouldn't put his name on this film. Overall, Jackson's problems are excessiveness just too much of everything. I will say the Empire State Building scene was great.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

ArnieG.Dec 18, 2005

Easily the best movie so far of the 21st century.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

EllisVanG.Dec 18, 2005

Great Movie.. Just ask Good as the Lord of The Rings Series. Peter jackson is a Movie Director god!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

StanC.Dec 18, 2005

OK, maybe it deserves 2 out of 10, but I had to give it a zero to balance out all of the inexplicable perfect scores. The writing is terrible and the story is a mess. The actors had to cringe when they saw the lines they were supposed to OK, maybe it deserves 2 out of 10, but I had to give it a zero to balance out all of the inexplicable perfect scores. The writing is terrible and the story is a mess. The actors had to cringe when they saw the lines they were supposed to say. The flashy, slow-motion editing was a desperate attempt at trying to make the audience care about the story, as was the manipulative soundtrack. The King Kong story defiinitely carries a message relevant to today -- too bad P. Jackson created a giant wreck of a film. The best part of the movie was Kong himself, especially the details in his ape behavior. It is scary that people paid to be film critics are giving this movie great reviews. I'm not big on conspiracies, but one has to wonder who is controlling the spin surrounding this film. (Movie messes are often the result when a bigtime director has complete control of a film [see recent films by Scorcese, Spielberg, Lucas]. What happens? Do they get caught up in the details and lose sight of the "big picture"? Does time pressure to finish films force jumbled edits? Are the people working for them all afraid to criticize their bosses in fear of losing their paychecks?)… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

MarkC.Dec 18, 2005

Did Peter Jackson somehow spike the water of virtually every news organization in the U.S.? He must have - otherwise, I just don't see how this movie could have gotten so many good reviews. It is, simply put, an utter bore. Is this King Did Peter Jackson somehow spike the water of virtually every news organization in the U.S.? He must have - otherwise, I just don't see how this movie could have gotten so many good reviews. It is, simply put, an utter bore. Is this King Kong or Jurassic Park??? By the amount of time spent on Skull Island, you would think it was the former. And was it really necessary to drag out those island chase scenes for eternity? There were about 5 good minutes in this movie (which came after sitting on my rear end for almost three hours.) It's no wonder the weekend grosses were disappointed for this supposed, "blockbuster". More like a ballbuster, if you ask me!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

BillC.Dec 18, 2005

The first 30 minutes is completely useless.The rest of the film is more a tribute to better special effects than better story telling. Not the worst movie ever, but certainly not worthy of the pre release hype. Jack Black and Adrine Brody The first 30 minutes is completely useless.The rest of the film is more a tribute to better special effects than better story telling. Not the worst movie ever, but certainly not worthy of the pre release hype. Jack Black and Adrine Brody bring nothing to their roles. Ebert has lost his mind,he should retire.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

TomDec 18, 2005

In all honesty, this gets a 7.5, rounding down rather than up. It would truely deserve perhaps an 8 or 9 if it weren't for the overdrawn, onanistic action movie this tender tale becomes in the second act. Otherwise, i think it's In all honesty, this gets a 7.5, rounding down rather than up. It would truely deserve perhaps an 8 or 9 if it weren't for the overdrawn, onanistic action movie this tender tale becomes in the second act. Otherwise, i think it's unfortunate that many are dismissing this film without deeply considering the heartbreaking tale that lies at the core, which I felt held true despite the dinosaurs, explosions and enormous insects. The first act ignited the passion for adventure, and the final act saw the brutal extinguishing of understanding and non-physical love, but unfortunately the middle part distorted and erased possible interpretation of the subtlties of the original story.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

King Kong

User Reviews