King Kong
Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 14, 2005
7.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1573 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,149
Mixed:
174
Negative:
250
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
4
LucyR.Dec 18, 2005
So here we are, with another underwhelming remake of a classic movie, from another high profile director. No, this isn't Spielberg's War of the ZzzzZZZzzz, this is King Kong by Lucas 2.0. The dialogue is weak. The plot points from So here we are, with another underwhelming remake of a classic movie, from another high profile director. No, this isn't Spielberg's War of the ZzzzZZZzzz, this is King Kong by Lucas 2.0. The dialogue is weak. The plot points from time to time make little sense. Worst of all, the flick is just too long. What could have been cut? Let's not forget we already have a perfect 90 minute cut of the story. The flick's first act just doesn't work. For any other movie it would have been fantastic, but with the knowledge of Kong just right around the corner (as seen in countless trailers, unlike how Spielberg hid the shark / dinosaurs / aliens), it just all falls apart. Pass.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WallaDec 18, 2005
Sweet as i said with Harry potter. 81! you critics are retarded.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JonahG.Dec 18, 2005
I thought that this was the best major release of the year. Jackson is able to create a tension and passion between Watts and Kong that would is almost impossible. The only detractor from the movie is Adrian Brody, who's character seems I thought that this was the best major release of the year. Jackson is able to create a tension and passion between Watts and Kong that would is almost impossible. The only detractor from the movie is Adrian Brody, who's character seems lost, as if its role is not fully understood by the writer or the actor. This is a fault that can be forgiven for this is a truly great movie which is able to weave a romantic storyline with incredible action sequences seamlessly.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChrisP.Dec 18, 2005
A movie made for children and hypnotized simpletons. It's mystical escapism. If you liked Lord of the Rings, and the new Star Wars movies, and are a sucker for melo-drama, over-used cinematic effects and horrible dialogue, then this A movie made for children and hypnotized simpletons. It's mystical escapism. If you liked Lord of the Rings, and the new Star Wars movies, and are a sucker for melo-drama, over-used cinematic effects and horrible dialogue, then this movie is for you. Apparently, a lot of people go for that. Everyone believes this movie is genius because Kong and Naomi Watts have a pure, untouchable relationship, and what happens to Kong is "heartbreaking". If you wanna see Heartbreaking, please, go see a documentary about any third world country. Or read the newspaper. Sorry. No great special effects though. But I'm being facetious. There were about twenty minutes of pretty good scenes, all of them with Kong. And the "tragic love" story was pretty good... But then there was the hour-long introduction. You know how you can tell when Jackson adds things in that weren't in the original? BECAUSE THEY'RE HORRIBLY WRITTEN. And then there's the sub-plots, which are so bad I was literally rolling in the aisles laughing while everyone else was in some sentimental paralysis: "It's not about being brave, little Jimmy, it's about being yourself!" WHAHAHAHA. That's almost as bad as the Matrix's infamous: "Neo--I BELIEVE!" I love movies, I love them so much I can quickly tell when a certain movie is destroying what beauty can be captured with a roll of film. The many close-calls and indifferent cardboard characters in this movie are complete crap. I feel defeated that so many people like this movie, or think that's it's genius. I don't kow what to say to them, except..."you like da shiny tings? Ok, you get more shiny things then!"… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MichaelJ.Dec 18, 2005
This is quite possibly the worst time I've had at the theaters all year. I didn't think any movie could drag on for so long and be as pointless as Brothers Grimm, but this one out does it by being longer, dumber, and more pointless This is quite possibly the worst time I've had at the theaters all year. I didn't think any movie could drag on for so long and be as pointless as Brothers Grimm, but this one out does it by being longer, dumber, and more pointless than I could have imagined. Is it the fake, laughable "love" story that's causing everyone to freak out about this movie and proclaim it an instant classic? The repetitive, headache inducing "action" scenes? Or the hillarious off target "acting"? Expect this to rack up a lot of Oscars, for it's as bloated and self-serious as Return of the King, and it seems everyone in the movie business has been paid off by Jackson and company.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
J.SallisterDec 18, 2005
Takes an already great movie and makes it better. Many people fail to see this is a remake of a 1930s film, and is not posed to be realistic. Someone rated this movie poorly because dinosaurs have not existed for over 300 million years and Takes an already great movie and makes it better. Many people fail to see this is a remake of a 1930s film, and is not posed to be realistic. Someone rated this movie poorly because dinosaurs have not existed for over 300 million years and the next person seems to think that this movie is a knockoff of Jurassic Park. People know before they see the film tthat it is a 3 hour movie and it includes a non-existant gorilla. Others like, Daniel T claim that this mega-budget remake of a classic that is (in itself an indication of the banal recycling endemic of current cinema), although Peter Jackson presented countless renditions of the classic to Universal before he was green-lighted, and others may not know that this is an homage and not an original picture, and probably is not meant to be. This movie delivers everything you'd wanna see in a film, some parts may be dragged out, but does not diminish the overall quality of the flick. Too many complain that the movie is unrealistic in every way, everyone knows that before they see the movie, stop crying. The racists (natives) are cannibals (people who eat people), and T-Rex's do not live on the coast, and the wall obviously could not contain Kong. Most people should see the original before they post a review.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ChrisM.Dec 18, 2005
If you didn't like it, I feel bad for you.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
NancyG.Dec 18, 2005
Very bad! Sentence this one to Cinema Jail with no parole! You'd get more emotion out of playing Halo for 3 hours.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
SaulR.Dec 18, 2005
WOW! Peter Jackson's done it again! He's fallen on his hands and knees and worshipped at the altar of empty special effects. Don't any of you people who rate this film so highly EVER wish to see something ORIGINAL at the WOW! Peter Jackson's done it again! He's fallen on his hands and knees and worshipped at the altar of empty special effects. Don't any of you people who rate this film so highly EVER wish to see something ORIGINAL at the cinema instead of this endless cycle of xerox remakes, sequels and adaptations? Maybe when you're marvelling at the CGI in McDONALDS: THE MOVIE some of you might rub your glazed eyes and think "Is THAt all there is?" The original KING KONG was a perfectly paced rollercoaster ride. This remake is like being stuck on a rapidly spinning Ferris Wheel for three hours. As for the guy who said it "surpasses the original in ever way"...yep-in every way except ORIGINALITY...but who cares about fresh ideas for stores when you 've got al that 'magical' CG eye candy to stare at? Sigh...… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
StephenDec 18, 2005
My goodness this was a long film. They could have easily taken 30-60 minutes out of the film in editing and made the end product much better. The first two hours in Skull Island just seemed to drag on forever. Many of the scenes were My goodness this was a long film. They could have easily taken 30-60 minutes out of the film in editing and made the end product much better. The first two hours in Skull Island just seemed to drag on forever. Many of the scenes were unnecessary and seemingly put in to display the amazing visual effects. Things start to pick up only after they arrive back in NY. Everything from that point forward is film making at its best.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MarkR.Dec 18, 2005
Absolutely brutal. No special effects can make up for bad acting, terrible directing, no orignality and plot holes you can drive a Mack truck through. And that first hour how boring get you get. As for the rest of it, if I want to be Absolutely brutal. No special effects can make up for bad acting, terrible directing, no orignality and plot holes you can drive a Mack truck through. And that first hour how boring get you get. As for the rest of it, if I want to be entertained with a video game that doesn't make any sense I can do that for a lot less than what I paid to see this crapola.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
0
KingDongDec 18, 2005
The original film is racist and this new version just highlights it. White people in black paint running around the island like crazy people...what is this??? The 50s??? Black Face??? Come on!!! A big ape who submits to a white woman and is The original film is racist and this new version just highlights it. White people in black paint running around the island like crazy people...what is this??? The 50s??? Black Face??? Come on!!! A big ape who submits to a white woman and is saved by a white man...and then turns on the whities who helped him...how dare you ape, turn on the good ol white folks. This is racist and its just a bad film. CGI sucks, there is no soul, Jack Black is horrible, only thing I like is Ms. Watts...but she cant make up for this crap film that all these racist critics are giving 10s to. Get real people! If you like this movie that much...no wonder Bush is still president.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
SteveE.Dec 18, 2005
This movie is the best thing ever set to celluloid. Phenomenal and beautiful, this film is definitly the best film of the year. Anyone who doesn't like it has no soul.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MackP.Dec 18, 2005
In a bit of silly characterization, the natives on Skull Island were rolling their eyes as if they were possesed by some overwhelming irrationality. And I can understand. I was rolling my eyes as well. Peter Jackson is indulgent and, In a bit of silly characterization, the natives on Skull Island were rolling their eyes as if they were possesed by some overwhelming irrationality. And I can understand. I was rolling my eyes as well. Peter Jackson is indulgent and, frankly, boring. The whole Skull Island action sequences were excruciating to watch. They added nothing to the story. Don't go to see this film. Rent it, maybe. Do not support an indulgent and wasteful and bad story teller like Peter Jackson. The best element of the film, its only redeeming quality, is the interaction between Naomi Watts' character and the ape. The critics are crazy and irresponsible to give this film high marks.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
LeszekK.Dec 18, 2005
I liked the acting except maybe for Jack Black. I couldn't get passed the fact that it was Jack Black in order to see the character played by him. It reminds me of Tom Cruise's syndrome. I thought the middle part of the film, the I liked the acting except maybe for Jack Black. I couldn't get passed the fact that it was Jack Black in order to see the character played by him. It reminds me of Tom Cruise's syndrome. I thought the middle part of the film, the one on Skull Island dragged and was gratuitous. It was like Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, and a trailer for a video game. Peter Jackson indulged and really bored me. The action sequences with the dinasaurs and insects had little thematically to do with the King Kong story. It really detracted from the main story. It's amazing how brain numbing Jackson's films can be. I enjoyed the New York and ship scenes.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
0
HarrisonDec 18, 2005
Embark on an epic adventure created in collaboration with Academy Award-winning director Peter Jackson and based on the Universal Pictures' film. Survive as Jack in a world crawling with predators and live the legend as Kong. Use Embark on an epic adventure created in collaboration with Academy Award-winning director Peter Jackson and based on the Universal Pictures' film. Survive as Jack in a world crawling with predators and live the legend as Kong. Use weapons, traps, and your team wisely to survive in first-person as Jack. Break jaws, slam enemies, and throw massive objects in Kong's colossal third-person battles. [Ubisoft] This is KONG the video game that Peter Jackson released this past November. As for the movie, it's about the same as the game. Both are awful. Terrible self promoting garbage from the new master of disaster. This movie is way too long tedious and boring. Nothing new as it is same old same old.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JerryC.Dec 18, 2005
I loved this movie going experience. I had cut way back on theatre going preferring my at home big screen & surround sound. However, this movie needs to be seen on a big screen at least once. The first hour was a little slow but still well I loved this movie going experience. I had cut way back on theatre going preferring my at home big screen & surround sound. However, this movie needs to be seen on a big screen at least once. The first hour was a little slow but still well done. Once the action started look out! It was incredible!!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
PartyPooperDec 18, 2005
This was one my most anticipated movies of the year. When the original was made back in 1933 during the depression audiences flocked to it in mass. It was the "Star Wars" of that generation and rightly so. The genius and creativity back then This was one my most anticipated movies of the year. When the original was made back in 1933 during the depression audiences flocked to it in mass. It was the "Star Wars" of that generation and rightly so. The genius and creativity back then was fantastic. For the special effects in 1933 they used an eighteeen inch puppet as KONG. Turn the clock forward seventy-two years and enter Peter Jackson as he decided to make a remake of a remake. That remake in '76 was absolutely laughable. Remember the Empire State Building replaced by the World Trade Center? Peter Jackson is known for his genius with CGI special effects. So what does Peter do? He throws them at the audience ad nauseam but forgets there are other components to a motion picture. He starts by assembling a cast only their mothers could love. Jack Black and Adrian Brody are miscast. He then spends an hour with a slow drawn out introduction dedicated to the GREAT DEPRESSION. In the original no one made any mention of the Depression, but now Jackson decided we had to see it. We didn't learn much but were subjected to this boring stuff for no apparent reason. Yes, Hooverville in Central Park was captured briliantly. And Peter's point is that he had no point. Then we finally arrive at Skull Island or should I say Jurrassic Park. The monsters including the CGI KONG are thrown at us as if Jackson is asking can I top this? By now nothing makes much sense at all. The ruthless natives are there one minute, and poof, they're gone. Where did they go? Well, for that answer we just don't know? After the illogical second act with KONG magically whiffed away to NY on a small damaged boat unventfully, the last act shows us CIRCA NY in 1933. We watch as KONG destroys NYC before taking his swan song exit on cue. And after three hours with absolutely no meaningful dialogue htere's Naomi in a sheer dress with high heels without a coat in the dead of a winter. Oh yes, she's standing atop a two by four circular platform as Adrian Brody joins her. Of course because little else made any sense, the cold and the wind are no problem to Peter Jackson as this dreadful excuse for a movie comes to an end. Now I wish there was some suspense but there can't be. Why? Bbecause it is a remake of a remake and we know the story. I'm sorry but this version is so poor that it would be torture to ever watch it again. That's how bad it is. To enjoy this flick you need to suspend all logic or perhaps had a lobtomy? Avoid at all costs.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AndyC.Dec 18, 2005
The only reason this film does not gain a perfect ten is that it is, at the end of the day, a remake. Most of the audience know the end, but what a ride they have on the way! We've had so many years of soulless CGI blockbusters; here The only reason this film does not gain a perfect ten is that it is, at the end of the day, a remake. Most of the audience know the end, but what a ride they have on the way! We've had so many years of soulless CGI blockbusters; here the effects are used for a reason. The middle section is the most exciting and fun film I've seen for a long time. In fact I haven't had that much celluloid fun since Raiders of the Lost Ark. Perhaps I need to get out more? I took my ten year old daughter to see this, who has never seen the original. She thoroughly enjoyed every minute. However, she was dry eyed at the end! I suspect the running time of the movie dilutes the impact of Kong's demise; deep down somewhere we are quite relieved to see him go. For my own part I blubbed like a baby. I always laugh when I see so much deep analysis of a film like this. It's the story of a 25 foot tall gorilla that falls in love with a girl, whilst tearing merry hell out of jungle monsters and New York. With that in mind it delivers everything for which you could wish.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DrtimDec 18, 2005
Remarkable. Unspoken love, maternal reverie, empathic connectedness; the relationship between the Naomi Watts characterand the digital ape/Andy Serkis is the transcendent heart of this film. In tapping something deeply innate it tolls for us all.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MPDec 17, 2005
A very solid 8. Anyone giving it less then about a 4 is an idiot. This movie is as bad as Gigli? I don't think so. I think the people giving the a 10 are a bit overenthusiastic, but at least they are closer to reality. Yes, some scenes A very solid 8. Anyone giving it less then about a 4 is an idiot. This movie is as bad as Gigli? I don't think so. I think the people giving the a 10 are a bit overenthusiastic, but at least they are closer to reality. Yes, some scenes were less then realistic. But the movie is fantasy, so that's fine with me. You have no problem with the 25 foot gorilla or the t. rex, but Naomi Watts underdressed in the winter is completely unbelievable? I agree that the film could have used some editing. A few scenes could have been shortened, and a few left out completely. But those are quibbles. Even with it's problems, it was still a great movie. Maybe not a masterpiece, but certainly better then 95% of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JeremyD.Dec 17, 2005
Excellent movie. An homage to Hollywood really.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MattT.Dec 17, 2005
Peter Jackson's revisit of King Kong was big in imagination and poor in execution. Skull island was a poor mix of Jurassic Park and Lord of the Flies, filled with impossible situations that the main characters kept surviving despite the Peter Jackson's revisit of King Kong was big in imagination and poor in execution. Skull island was a poor mix of Jurassic Park and Lord of the Flies, filled with impossible situations that the main characters kept surviving despite the endless supply of extras that kept appearing to be trampled or eaten. The island scenes dragged on forever. Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts had little chemistry and poorly written parts. Jack Black was in way over his head. The finale in New York was visually pretty well done although the park scenes were completely out of place and Jack Black's last line was wooden and poorly delivered. This was a total waste of three hours despite the best efforts of the ape. Kong couldn't rescue this turkey Peter Jackson.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RiazD.Dec 17, 2005
This movie takes every element of a good film and almost perfects it. a month or two ago, when i heard about a king kong remake, i decided i wasn't going to see it. i thought, "a movie about a giant gorilla in 2005?" but then i read andThis movie takes every element of a good film and almost perfects it. a month or two ago, when i heard about a king kong remake, i decided i wasn't going to see it. i thought, "a movie about a giant gorilla in 2005?" but then i read and saw the reviews and decided i would give it a try. i'm absolutely blown away by this film! it was intense, engaging, touching, deep, etc. this is an instant classic!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ScottS.Dec 17, 2005
In a word, overwrought. Of the 187 minutes, seven were beautiful, rarified and touched by magic. As for the rest of the movie, the timeless story is trounced by excess, hubris and inconsistencies, and badly marred by a screenplay apparently In a word, overwrought. Of the 187 minutes, seven were beautiful, rarified and touched by magic. As for the rest of the movie, the timeless story is trounced by excess, hubris and inconsistencies, and badly marred by a screenplay apparently written by a third grader. Earlier in his career, Jackson cared about characters, and used special effects to further the story. In Kong, the technology is the story, and the tone-deaf result is a bore.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BudS.Dec 17, 2005
The original King Kong is the motion picture equivalent of the cotton gin: a groundbreaking, technical marvel in its time that's now an obsolete relic. With that in mind, I wasn't excited about a remake, but this exceeded my The original King Kong is the motion picture equivalent of the cotton gin: a groundbreaking, technical marvel in its time that's now an obsolete relic. With that in mind, I wasn't excited about a remake, but this exceeded my expectations. Frank O. is right, the first act is slow, "Jurassic Park" is a unimaginative knock-off of Kong...but I think this new Kong is really uneven. The second act just pounds you senseless with overkill (let's have one...no two...no three...no FOUR dinosaurs!...and before that a STAMPEDE!...) The third act, when Kong gets loose, that's the best part. The action is more impressive, there's some very graceful filmmaking (particularly the quiet moments and the way they're interrupted), and the look of 1930's New York during December is GORGEOUS. (Naomi Watts has also never looked better.) Jackson also does a good job of recreating the memorable climax - justifiably the most famous part of the original Kong. Jackson even achieves more emotion and some deep pathos in this remake. The movie's still hokey in a lot of spots and I'm no fan of cheese. In fact, the movie's final line is taken straight from the original, and half the theater groaned when they heard it. Not a great picture, but the third act saved it for me.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DarrelRheaDec 17, 2005
Delightfully over the top, and then some. This movie is just plain fun!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TwoHankiesDec 17, 2005
C'mon this is the best con job since the invention of the pet rock. There was no acting, no originality, and certainly nothing more than an expensive video game. The critics must have had a lobotomy to have liked this crap. Avoid.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
1
D.S.Dec 17, 2005
This is simply a bad movie. Maybe the made the video game first, which is why it's all about dinosaurs and giant insects? The plot is jumpy and incoherent, and the characters are not developed at all. The so-called love story with Watts This is simply a bad movie. Maybe the made the video game first, which is why it's all about dinosaurs and giant insects? The plot is jumpy and incoherent, and the characters are not developed at all. The so-called love story with Watts & Brody is a joke. Why are people saying this is a good movie? It's not!… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
1
AlbertSchweitzerDec 17, 2005
Very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad. Laughable, dull, trite. Far less convincing than the original in terms of character emotions and especially the logic of its action scenes. Self-serious in the extreme. Jack Black is terrible. On Very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad. Laughable, dull, trite. Far less convincing than the original in terms of character emotions and especially the logic of its action scenes. Self-serious in the extreme. Jack Black is terrible. On the upside, three excellent action sequences (amounting to ~20 minutes) and good acting (in thankless roles) from the rest of the cast. Not quite believable but nice-looking mock-ups of Depression-era New York.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
J.N.Dec 17, 2005
A bit too long, a bit too much CGI, a bit too much a lot of things. This movie, although entertaining and emotional, makes the old saying "too much of a good thing" very true. Although much of the special effects were very well used, some A bit too long, a bit too much CGI, a bit too much a lot of things. This movie, although entertaining and emotional, makes the old saying "too much of a good thing" very true. Although much of the special effects were very well used, some parts, like with the dinosaurs falling on top of each other and the giant leeches, you just have to laugh. Enjoyable, but no masterpiece.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AnthonyB.Dec 17, 2005
Hooo! What more I can say. That was spectacularly breathtaking movie! King Kong got it all. Horror, romance, comedy, adventure....they are all mixed in one movie. Seems that, it was another trilogy by none other than trilogy master, Sir Hooo! What more I can say. That was spectacularly breathtaking movie! King Kong got it all. Horror, romance, comedy, adventure....they are all mixed in one movie. Seems that, it was another trilogy by none other than trilogy master, Sir Peter Jackson! Best part was the scenes in the Island. That was soooo chilling and it was making your breath to stop. Audience yelling and screaming and suddenly bursting to laugh. Two times crying scene, epical in style. Thats it! A must see movie! I love Peter Jackson films! The best so far in the History of World Entertainment .… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BrianO.W.Dec 17, 2005
Like watching over someone's shoulder as they played a videogame, KONG is perfect entertainment for 21st century's visually overloaded "switch-yr-brain-off-and -enjoy-the-ride" audiences. I'm getting far more entertainment out Like watching over someone's shoulder as they played a videogame, KONG is perfect entertainment for 21st century's visually overloaded "switch-yr-brain-off-and -enjoy-the-ride" audiences. I'm getting far more entertainment out of the comments posted here and I hope Jackson hires some of the users on this forum to write his next brain-dead comedy. According to them if you don't rate this film a 10 you're 'pretensious", or "a snob", who must "hate movies' or didn't actually even watch it before posting a review(!!). Apparently a 3 hour duration is excusable because there are other movies that are 3 hrs long. It's hard to choose between the funniest comment between John B, who claims this remake would 'genius if it had not been done before" (mind boggling!) or Daniel T who claims that this mega-budget remake of a classic (in itself an indication of the banal recycling endemic of current cinema) is somehow an "...antidote to the banality of modern cinema'! Oh God, LOL!… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
9
FrankO.Dec 17, 2005
I think there are a few people who might have missed the point of the movie. The movie's logic isn't in 2005, it's in the 1930's. As a movie buff, I really enjoyed that cheekiness. This was realism, but hyper-realism. I think there are a few people who might have missed the point of the movie. The movie's logic isn't in 2005, it's in the 1930's. As a movie buff, I really enjoyed that cheekiness. This was realism, but hyper-realism. With a nod to the inaccuracies of the original. I hope everyone knows that this is a remake of the 1930s film and not the 1970s one. "Jurassic Park" stole from "King Kong" not the other way around... Peter Jackson's just keeping true to the source material. Yes, the first act is slow, but once the action gets going, it really gets going. Yes, I did wonder how on earth little Naomi Watts stayed warm in the middle of winter in only a slip dress... hmmm... then again, I remember, it's just a silly movie and a pretty darn good one at that.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
PhilS.Dec 17, 2005
One of the whiniest, cheesiest movies of it's genre. Stunningly realistic animation is the only positive aspect of the film. The action sequences are too numerous, too long, and just plain boring. The non-action sequences are laughably One of the whiniest, cheesiest movies of it's genre. Stunningly realistic animation is the only positive aspect of the film. The action sequences are too numerous, too long, and just plain boring. The non-action sequences are laughably sentimental.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DanielT.Dec 17, 2005
Ignore the po-faces who use words like "excessive", "indulgent" and "clunky", do these people even like movies? King Kong is a spectacular mega-event movie that should not be missed on the big screen. With over three hours of thrills, Ignore the po-faces who use words like "excessive", "indulgent" and "clunky", do these people even like movies? King Kong is a spectacular mega-event movie that should not be missed on the big screen. With over three hours of thrills, action, comedy and compassion, it's the perfect antidote to the banality of modern cinema.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
babytettobeemeDec 17, 2005
Actually few people learn how to enjoy fantasy movies done seriously in every way!, in every aspect, this is one of the wonders of the years, not only a blockbuster, tha movies also are made for enjoy not only for critic, but this is excellence!!.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RossP.C.Dec 17, 2005
King Kong rocked my socks off. Some of these reviews are too pretentious. If you're looking for realism, go watch something LESS FUN. I never knew how badly I wanted to see a brontosaurus pile-up. I was out of breath at the end of each King Kong rocked my socks off. Some of these reviews are too pretentious. If you're looking for realism, go watch something LESS FUN. I never knew how badly I wanted to see a brontosaurus pile-up. I was out of breath at the end of each action sequence and the audience was screaming and cheering throughout the movie. Yeah haw, King Kong is an experience not just a movie. Suspend your disbelief and enjoy the spectacle.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ShoaH.Dec 17, 2005
King Kong- Colossal. Peter Jackson- Triumphant. Jackson takes you on an unimaginable ride that you will never forget. Three hours of my life well spent. Long live Peter Jackson!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
FauxPasDec 17, 2005
I was stunned at how bad this movie was, I'm truly mystified at how all these critics gave it positive ratings. It took an hour to get to the stupid island. Then it thought it was Jurassic Park for 30 minutes; then about 30 minutes of I was stunned at how bad this movie was, I'm truly mystified at how all these critics gave it positive ratings. It took an hour to get to the stupid island. Then it thought it was Jurassic Park for 30 minutes; then about 30 minutes of Starship Troopers with big bugs. And where did all the natives go the second time our heroes landed on the island? Oh, and did anyone else notice that Ann was outside with Kong overnight in skimpy dress in the middle of winter? Yes, I know this is a fantasy pic, but let's at least get some basic physical realities right! This movie was horrible.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
TonyB.Dec 17, 2005
Totally enjoyed it. A few minor things could have been changed (mixing dinosaurs and people running together, and any ofthe people surviving was a bit of a stretch, and the same with those pesky insects). The close ups of Naomi were Totally enjoyed it. A few minor things could have been changed (mixing dinosaurs and people running together, and any ofthe people surviving was a bit of a stretch, and the same with those pesky insects). The close ups of Naomi were beautiful, BTW. If you go to movies to be entertained, I can't think of any movie that could have done it better. I enjoyed it at least as much as the original. The only changes I would have liked to have seen would have been a little less of the first hour, and a little more of scenes in NY at the end.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RoboRockerDec 17, 2005
No, it's not a masterpiece of a film. No it doesn't deserve a 10...anyone who would give it such a high vote is simply amused by the simplest illusions. I agree the FXs are nice, but even that has it's share of problems. There No, it's not a masterpiece of a film. No it doesn't deserve a 10...anyone who would give it such a high vote is simply amused by the simplest illusions. I agree the FXs are nice, but even that has it's share of problems. There are times when it looks too CGI in scenes where, frankly, they didn't even need to use CGI to begin with. Also, I couldn't help but see exposure differences between some of the CGI and real objects. To the point of wondering if this was farmed out to the lowest bidder. I don't feel this movie is ground-breaking in visuals, but they do use a lot of mock computer animated bling bling to get your attention. Kong leaps around at times as though he's a frog. A terrible oversight on the part of the animators. This flick is ok at best, but don't go believing any reviews that suggest it's a masterpiece.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AmosnAndyDec 17, 2005
Alright, it's obvious that this movie was made with a great love of the original King Kong and the 1930's in general. I found it disgusting, then, that Jackson seemed to ignore the fact that racial stereotypes were so prevalent in Alright, it's obvious that this movie was made with a great love of the original King Kong and the 1930's in general. I found it disgusting, then, that Jackson seemed to ignore the fact that racial stereotypes were so prevalent in the films of that time. In this 3 hour (felt like 10) "epic" we witness scenes of primitive brutality at the hands of the Skull Island natives. These people were obviously using the leftover Ureki makeup from LOTR, so they look impish, filthy and evil. There is no humanizing them; every single last one of them, from the children to the elders, have only two purposes- to first be evil and try and kill our heroes so we hate them, and then to be heroically gunned down by the captain and crew so we cheer. I mean... am I the only one who felt that was at best extremely ignorant and at worst akin to reading "The White Man's Burden"? Jackson even threw in the stereotypical "Chinaman", with a little cap and Fu Manchu who speak like "Me rike fried wice!" and has one line of dialogue and is never once fleshed out into a real character and then dies. Well, no matter... continue giving out 10's. Peter Jackson could direct anything and it'd be seen as a masterpiece by all these stupid critics. This movie's emotions, action and special effects are on par with the 1998 Godzilla movie, but because Jackson and it's 3 hours long it must be BREATHTAKING! ASTONISHING! I WAS N THE EDGE OF MY SEAT!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
FenceSitterDec 17, 2005
Highly enjoyable, great performance from Andy Serkis.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RajivDec 17, 2005
King Kong the imagery was magnificent. But if this is a blockbuster movie what is Gone With The Wind and Titanic. To even compare this sorry excuse with these two great films is a total joke. The critics had to be paid off.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LolaA.Dec 17, 2005
CGI special effects were awesome and thus the 2 points. As for the rest of this movie, it was the pits. Way toooooo looong and boring. I fell asleep during the first 70 minutes. They should be selling NO DOZE at the concession stand. And CGI special effects were awesome and thus the 2 points. As for the rest of this movie, it was the pits. Way toooooo looong and boring. I fell asleep during the first 70 minutes. They should be selling NO DOZE at the concession stand. And when the action started with a remake of Jurassic Park you had to laugh. It was reminiscent of the old Star Trek in which you knew who was going to die by the different color uniforms they wore. Well here, the marginal characters were ALPO for the big bad monsters. Ooooooooooh I was so scared. NOT. And the last hour was Peter Jackson playing with old New York of 1933. Great job Peter. Let me know when your horrendous actors even act. As for Jack Black and Adrian Brody they were simply awful. I loved Naomi on top of the Empire State in high heels in the middle of winter without a coat. Such realism?… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
SteveP.Dec 17, 2005
Some people say Kong is a flawless masterpiece. Some say it is a boring, grueling crapfest. The truth: Neither; Kong falls somewhere in between. The CGI is nothing to complain about, because it's some of the best ever used. My main beef Some people say Kong is a flawless masterpiece. Some say it is a boring, grueling crapfest. The truth: Neither; Kong falls somewhere in between. The CGI is nothing to complain about, because it's some of the best ever used. My main beef with the movie is that most of it plays out like a videogame. Naomi Watts swings back and forth and nearly gets eaten. Big bugs make the audience scream out, "Eww!!!" I would equate King Kong with one of those 3D movies at Disney World. Then the very next moment it is playing sad music and you are staring at the soulful eyes of a dying Kong. Also, I agree. 3 Hours is too long of a movie. I don't blame Jackson, because trying to entertain someone for 3 hours is an ambitious task. Bottome Line: Some of it is a marvel to look at, and some is really cool, but I never have much fun with Jackson's movies.… Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
9
JeethJ.Dec 17, 2005
The movie was great.....especially the visuals and the expressions of kong......excellent stuff by peter jackson.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
PaulH.Dec 17, 2005
Please tell me I was dreaming. This is so bad that I can't even find the right words to condem it. The first hour was slow and boring and did nothing in developing the characters. The second hour bordered on ridiculous with a remake of Please tell me I was dreaming. This is so bad that I can't even find the right words to condem it. The first hour was slow and boring and did nothing in developing the characters. The second hour bordered on ridiculous with a remake of Jurassic Park. As for the destruction of NY it was laughable. I especially loved the last scene with Naomi Watts in the middle of winter standing with high heels in a spring dress at the very top of the crown on the Empire State Buidling on her toes with Adrian Brody. One gust of wind and the movie would have had a realistic ending as both would have been blown away. I think Kong committed suicide because he was embarrassed by this sorry excuse for a motion picture. Awful.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnK.Dec 17, 2005
Before rating this movie, I tried something that Metacritic voters usually don't try...I saw the movie. [Ed: Hey now...] It was great, honestly, and if you can't take the length, skip it; while you're at it, skip The Godfather Before rating this movie, I tried something that Metacritic voters usually don't try...I saw the movie. [Ed: Hey now...] It was great, honestly, and if you can't take the length, skip it; while you're at it, skip The Godfather and The Aviator and every other great movie that bulldozed past 2 hours. This is an action classic. The CGI was fantastic, the script was great (besides a few missteps early on). Bad reviewers, have fun being a niche and a trendster. Everyone thinks you're smart because you can't have a good time. Enjoy the self importance. We'll be over here on the rollercoaster.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
PeterJ.Dec 17, 2005
Am I missing something? Seriously, am I seeing the same movie that every critic seems to think is incredible and breathtaking? All I saw was a movie on par with the likes of Mortal Kombat and The Mummy Returns, chock full of blurry lifeless Am I missing something? Seriously, am I seeing the same movie that every critic seems to think is incredible and breathtaking? All I saw was a movie on par with the likes of Mortal Kombat and The Mummy Returns, chock full of blurry lifeless CGI action and an ape with all the emotional weight of one of those goofy invisible alien dogs from Alone in the Dark. Well, at least all the countless licensed video games, toys and "Xtra Hefty" Grab Trash Bags will help to ensure that we'll be seeing another 31 hour long, bloated, self serious "epic" from Jackson in the near future.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
PDWriteDec 17, 2005
Die, Kong, Die! When he's passing out on the island I thought, my god, are we going to have to go through this again? But I was wrong--it seemed like we had to go through the same mournful, incredibly slooooowww gazes another ten times! Die, Kong, Die! When he's passing out on the island I thought, my god, are we going to have to go through this again? But I was wrong--it seemed like we had to go through the same mournful, incredibly slooooowww gazes another ten times! Her face is great, his face is great, the expressions are wonderful--but too long, and Jackson doesn't seem to even know what dialogue is. I was entertained, but please, go back to elf-talk or something. Plus, I still want to punch Adrian Brody in the nose as much as Halle Berry did at the oscars.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JonathanH.Dec 16, 2005
Anybody who gives this movie a 5 or less is insane. I cannot picture why anyone would give this masterpiece such a low rating. The first hour when they are on the ship was great because of the great acting. So anyone who says the first hour Anybody who gives this movie a 5 or less is insane. I cannot picture why anyone would give this masterpiece such a low rating. The first hour when they are on the ship was great because of the great acting. So anyone who says the first hour sucks should tell me how the movie would make sense without it.When they get to skull island, you can expect an hour and a half of nonstop brilliant acting, action, and much more. Then when king kong gets captured, it gets even better. This whole movie is spectaculr, and the only reason why I did not give it a 10 is because I knew what was coming next. But definetly a must- see for anyone.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
TracyB.Dec 16, 2005
Visually stunning, moving in arts but the story was streched to long. Should have been cut by 1 hour, at least 30 minutes. I really wanted to love it but the length minimized the impact.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChrisV.Dec 16, 2005
Some of the movie is amazing to see but most of it is either silly, stupid or unnecessary. Even some of the special effects were bad, especially the dinosaur chase scene where its pretty easy to see when the men were replaced with cgi Some of the movie is amazing to see but most of it is either silly, stupid or unnecessary. Even some of the special effects were bad, especially the dinosaur chase scene where its pretty easy to see when the men were replaced with cgi characters. There are subplots that slow the story, especially the one about the 18 boy learning about manhood. How did that fit in and why did we have to sit through at least 20 minutes of that nonsense. I don't know if Peter Jackson has been to the top of the Empire State Building in the winter but I have and you wouldn't want to be up there in just a flimsy dress. Has Mr. Jackson heard of whiplash? Naomi Watts should have been dead 5 minutes after Kong grabbed her and started running. That would have saved us 90 minutes of torture. The only two redeeming things about this film are Jack Black and the last 20 minutes which are breathtaking even if silly.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
LanceM.Dec 16, 2005
Great remake of a classic movie. Peter Jackson has once again shown that he has an eye for the story as well as action. Would definitely see it again.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
WillisW.Dec 16, 2005
Over rated and excessive. Should have been an hour and a half, or should have used the 200 million to improve education in Texas. The best parts are the scenes in New York, without the Gorilla. Jackson can tell a story, but he's all Over rated and excessive. Should have been an hour and a half, or should have used the 200 million to improve education in Texas. The best parts are the scenes in New York, without the Gorilla. Jackson can tell a story, but he's all fangoria instead of naturalist. This would have been a much better film if he'd had a biologist mentality instead of a zombie movie. The dripping orcs from LotR return as savage natives, definitely the low point of the three hour spectacle.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MarshallDec 16, 2005
absolutely amazing! why anyone would want to go thru life NOT seeing this masterpeice of modern cinema is beyond me. one of the years best.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JohnB.Dec 16, 2005
Consider the movie first with no knowledge of Kong or what the story is about. Walk into the movie theater without ever hearing about "Kong" and you have one of the most eye popping, mind boggling movies in history. The magic felt during the Consider the movie first with no knowledge of Kong or what the story is about. Walk into the movie theater without ever hearing about "Kong" and you have one of the most eye popping, mind boggling movies in history. The magic felt during the original film would exist when you walk out of the theater. Peter Jackson proves his abilities to make seamless visuals which in of itself could tell the whole story. I hadn't even realized that near the end of the film there was nearly an absence of dialog altogether. Jackson so easily sets a certain mood using both the emotions of the actors as well as visuals even if that takes a longer scene here or there. It's true that the movie could have been shaved a good 15 - 30 minutes but once the action begins, the movie equally speeds up and sets a good pace. Though everyone knew what was about to happen next, nothing seemed forced. "King Kong" is a must see and it would only seem better if not genius had the giant ape not been done before and the mysteries and wonders of skull island not been discovered.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SheilaM.Dec 16, 2005
Pointless, long-winded and tiresome remake that replaces all the charm of the 1933 original with an orgy of indulgent, redundant CGI "magic". Jack D, you just summed up the redundancy of internet 'reviews' by telling people who Pointless, long-winded and tiresome remake that replaces all the charm of the 1933 original with an orgy of indulgent, redundant CGI "magic". Jack D, you just summed up the redundancy of internet 'reviews' by telling people who didn't like KONG 2005 to 'Go ahead! make a better movie...". You mean, i can't voice an honest opinion of this movie until someone gives me $200 million dollars to see if I can do better? Using the same logic, you shouldn't criticize INDEPENDENT DAY unless you make a better movie. good luck!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JeffG.Dec 16, 2005
Brilliant, funny, serious, poignant, action packed, sublte.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
TaylorS.Dec 16, 2005
I saw this and my friends were amazed. I thought it was good, but something was missing. I couldn't put my finger on it, until reading other reviews. The movie was out of propotion: the ship scene was way too long, and not enough time I saw this and my friends were amazed. I thought it was good, but something was missing. I couldn't put my finger on it, until reading other reviews. The movie was out of propotion: the ship scene was way too long, and not enough time was spent in the end at New York.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AlexDec 16, 2005
Considering the films that critics have been raving over lately, I'm surprised King Kong got such great reviews even though Kong wasn't a dead author or a queer cowboy. I guess this movie must be good. It was just pure Considering the films that critics have been raving over lately, I'm surprised King Kong got such great reviews even though Kong wasn't a dead author or a queer cowboy. I guess this movie must be good. It was just pure entertainment.....think about it...did you really expect this movie to explore the forbidden love of beastiality? Come on.....just because a movie is made merely to tell an entertaining story doesn't mean it's shallow and over-hyped....P.S. I didn't even realize the movie was so long until i got up after the closing credits rolled and i realized my legs were asleep. If Pete Jackson can make me forget that I even have legs, I'd say he's a master of the craft.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JeffD.Dec 16, 2005
Overy long, too full of endless chase scenes (albeit with prehistoric monsters) and a script that pokes fun at itself so much that it takes you out of the story and makes you know you're watching a film. Special effects are fine, but, Overy long, too full of endless chase scenes (albeit with prehistoric monsters) and a script that pokes fun at itself so much that it takes you out of the story and makes you know you're watching a film. Special effects are fine, but, really, who cares? The story of intimacy between the ape and the girl is well worth pursuing, but is given short shrift in this much much much too long movie. It's got a good 1.5 hours worth of movie and the rest is just loud but dull filler.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
GlennP.Dec 16, 2005
This movie was like an endurance test. It was like Jackson was asking the audience "Just how long will you put up with this movie?"... The first hour of this film could have and should have been condensed into 20 minutes. The last 15 minutes This movie was like an endurance test. It was like Jackson was asking the audience "Just how long will you put up with this movie?"... The first hour of this film could have and should have been condensed into 20 minutes. The last 15 minutes of the film are absolutely breathtaking filmmaking, but by the time I got there I was so pissed off I couldn't enjoy it. This movie sucked. and it will suck at the box office too. I'm willing to wager that some of the reviewers listed MUST have been paid off by General Electric, owner of Universal Pictures. I can't describe how disappointed I was in this film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JackD.Dec 16, 2005
All these bad reviews!!! Go ahead, make a better movie, you guys couldn't even make a movie as good (or bad) as Uwe Boll, because if you could you wouldn't be sitting around complaining about it on your PC. You are all a waste. All these bad reviews!!! Go ahead, make a better movie, you guys couldn't even make a movie as good (or bad) as Uwe Boll, because if you could you wouldn't be sitting around complaining about it on your PC. You are all a waste. Don't get me wrong, I don't like most Hollywood blockbusters (Independance Day or what have you), they are awful. But if you really think Peter Jackson is a hack, watch Heavenly Creatures. And if you think LOTR is bad, well several Oscars and many other awards given by people who do other things besides complain about movies on the computer seem to think otherwise.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
KingKongBundyDec 16, 2005
I know that most of the critics searching for an art elements in movies. They tend to be mean for the blockbuster type of movies. But don't tell me you guys didn't enjoy a bit when you watch the blockbuster movies, especially the I know that most of the critics searching for an art elements in movies. They tend to be mean for the blockbuster type of movies. But don't tell me you guys didn't enjoy a bit when you watch the blockbuster movies, especially the good one such as King Kong. I don't mind the low rating but it must based on professionalism, not as a punching bag, you know bashing up all the time.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JaceB.Dec 16, 2005
King Kong is one of the best films of 2005. After months of lackluster films, Peter Jackson finally released his long-awaited film. This film, to sum it up in one word, is amazing. While others have found it slow, I found it to be one of the King Kong is one of the best films of 2005. After months of lackluster films, Peter Jackson finally released his long-awaited film. This film, to sum it up in one word, is amazing. While others have found it slow, I found it to be one of the most exciting movies I've ever seen. The acting was solid, with an outstanding performance by Watts, the dialogue good, and the overall direction of the fim was excellent. Only a few complaints kept this movie from getting a perfect ten. But anyways, this film ends the 2005 movie year on a high note.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AdrianL.Dec 16, 2005
Are you people mad? This is one of the most boring movies of all time. $200M was spend on GCI as for the acting Wooden Indians would have been better. There is no chemistry and other than King Kong and Jurassic Park there is very little Are you people mad? This is one of the most boring movies of all time. $200M was spend on GCI as for the acting Wooden Indians would have been better. There is no chemistry and other than King Kong and Jurassic Park there is very little else. Not worthy of your time or money.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
GeoffB.Dec 16, 2005
We have 200 million to spend! Let's see, we'll spend a fair bit on the screenplay?...... nah! On actors? ....whatever. On CGI?.....oh, yes indeedy! I fear that Peter Jackson went to the dark side and relied heavily on CGI, We have 200 million to spend! Let's see, we'll spend a fair bit on the screenplay?...... nah! On actors? ....whatever. On CGI?.....oh, yes indeedy! I fear that Peter Jackson went to the dark side and relied heavily on CGI, attempting to mask the fact that his movie has no soul. God help us if he turns into another George Lucas, offering us high-tech banality.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ChrisE.Dec 16, 2005
I wonder if those of you who gave this a low rating saw the same film I did. Yes, it was a bit long (Jackson is not one to do things in a hurry) but it was magical. This is why we go to the movies. The T-Rex fight (not to spoil anything) was I wonder if those of you who gave this a low rating saw the same film I did. Yes, it was a bit long (Jackson is not one to do things in a hurry) but it was magical. This is why we go to the movies. The T-Rex fight (not to spoil anything) was one of the best action sequences put to film. Maybe none of it was "there" but still. This film is fun, sad, sacry, funny...eveything a film should be. There is a difference between movies and films. Movies are put out for a buck, good or bad, they have no real value (i.e. Spider-Man, Wedding Crashers). Films mean something and make you feel something (i.e. American Beauty) This is the very definition (at least MY very definition) of a film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
ZachDec 16, 2005
I saw this movie last night and was surprised how good it was. I was expecting it would be long and boring like those LOTR movies Jackson was behind, but this was good. It's worth it to see King Kong fighting the T'Rexes alone. I saw this movie last night and was surprised how good it was. I was expecting it would be long and boring like those LOTR movies Jackson was behind, but this was good. It's worth it to see King Kong fighting the T'Rexes alone. Tons of action, really fun to see.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
BakracM.Dec 16, 2005
Great movie almost perfect!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ConradS.Dec 16, 2005
Ignore all the criticism, Peter Jackson might just walk away with another couple of Oscars.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
E.B.Dec 16, 2005
Peter Jackson is becoming known for his 3 hour movies...which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
VoiceOfReasonDec 16, 2005
King Kong CGI = 10 Naomi Watts = 10 Jurassic Park Monsters = 10 Jurassic Park Scene = 5 Skull Island Believability = 0 Origninal Screenplay = 0 Jack Black = 0 Adrian Brody = 0 Watts - Brody Chemistry = 0 Cast of Thousands = 0 Intelligent King Kong CGI = 10 Naomi Watts = 10 Jurassic Park Monsters = 10 Jurassic Park Scene = 5 Skull Island Believability = 0 Origninal Screenplay = 0 Jack Black = 0 Adrian Brody = 0 Watts - Brody Chemistry = 0 Cast of Thousands = 0 Intelligent Dialogue = 0 Any Dialogue = 0 Plot Holes = 1,000,000 Director = 0 Length of Movie = Way Too Long. PR Hype = In every way imaginable. Summary = Boring Inept Crapola. Recommendation = Stay Far Away.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
Jakefreydont-A.Dec 16, 2005
I didn't give it a 0 because I did enjoy the first 45 minutes, you know, the part with the dialog. The rest is just a loud obnoxious video game. There was no reason for this movie to get made, it is so boring, what a waste of $200 mil. I didn't give it a 0 because I did enjoy the first 45 minutes, you know, the part with the dialog. The rest is just a loud obnoxious video game. There was no reason for this movie to get made, it is so boring, what a waste of $200 mil. and I'm sure peter jackson thinks he's a great director.... sad.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
8
SeanD.Dec 15, 2005
So...everyone can plainly see my rating for the film and I will explain that shortly. However, I would like to take this time and refute some of the dismissals people place on the film. First, the so-called "racist" content: this complaint So...everyone can plainly see my rating for the film and I will explain that shortly. However, I would like to take this time and refute some of the dismissals people place on the film. First, the so-called "racist" content: this complaint is laughable, because of its PC politics igoring the fact that no one in the film refers to the native peoples as "savage" or even derogatorily comments on the society. These are not cannibals but a race of people forced to live in rocky terrain and survive on fish (Jackson carefully places a shot of dried fish within a montage of the village), so yelling "movie foul" on Jackson's portrayal of primitive peoples holds no water. Secondly, users (and even some critics) decry the length of the film: my focus was on the pacing. Analyzing the film, we see an hour allowed for development of characters. Compare to, say a program people with short attention spans enjoy, Leguna Beach. THOSE 2-D characters have to have some kind of personality to warrant an entire season; however, the characters in "King Kong" need only be focused on for three hours. Who then can say that one hour to personalize and humanize Jack, Carl, Ann, Hays, the Captain, and Carl's crew is too much? It is not a huge demand considering the characters will be placed under extreme stresses for the remaining time. I give credit to Jackson for trying to go beyond introducing "fodder characters" and create personalities which will give some empathetic weight to the proceedings. Complaints then are from people not accustomed to quality characters; I mean, it's not excessive to have an hour if "Hamlet" runs over three hours for the sake of one character. The CGI was crafted with emotion (which I cannot say for Lucas' stark universe), but then Jackson was careful to include something real with the fabricated in each shot. Watts was rarely replaced with an animated standin (compared to Spiderman or Star Wars, both look like action figure battles in parts). My only criticism is that the script seemed to lose strength near the end, and in the jungle. Scenes relied too heavily on "moment" shots. It tells me that the filmmaker doesn't trust the view to "get" the point that fast. Over indulging on moments is what makes this film excessive to some viewers. All in all, the film entertained and carried a subtle theme of displacement and human nature. What I liked especially was the Depression montage of the beginning, the poverty of the people linking to the primitive culture and resulting finally in the synthesis of the two worlds, King Kong, having no other option but to die. That may be a bit much, I know, but I think it's worth noting that interpretations for the mythos range the spectrum, and Jackson is all the more responsible by maintaining the original ambiguity.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AlanD.Dec 15, 2005
This movie is in the same vein as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy - great special effects but overly long. The story didn't pull me in emotionally and this made some of the corny dialogue even harder to bear. I give it a This movie is in the same vein as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy - great special effects but overly long. The story didn't pull me in emotionally and this made some of the corny dialogue even harder to bear. I give it a six just for the Ty Rex vs. Kong battle...… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JainLDec 15, 2005
This is a truly amazing and heartfelt movie. The connection between our kingkong and naomi watts is beautiful. Everyone should see this and also realize the animal cruelty still going on in the world by the blinded people.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JudyT.Dec 15, 2005
Too ridiculous for words. A movie for 13 year old boys. I was hoping that Ann would throw herself off the Empire State Building so that she could avoid another cheesy close up. Any body can make aCGI character, look at the Hulk but you have Too ridiculous for words. A movie for 13 year old boys. I was hoping that Ann would throw herself off the Empire State Building so that she could avoid another cheesy close up. Any body can make aCGI character, look at the Hulk but you have to breathe more than life into it. You have to get the audience into the movie and Pete fails to do that with this story.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
Byron"Buster"B.Dec 15, 2005
After my extensive cartography lessons at a prestigious institution of higher learning, the mere idea of an undiscovered island existing--even in the midst of the Great Depression--are slim to none. If you're looking for a plot whole, After my extensive cartography lessons at a prestigious institution of higher learning, the mere idea of an undiscovered island existing--even in the midst of the Great Depression--are slim to none. If you're looking for a plot whole, here's another one: a ten ton gorilla running rampant on an island where all the critters are at a 8/5 scale of what they should be. In comparison, getting an ape on a boat seems pretty simple! SPOILER: despite what commercials tell you, this is not a documentary. King Kong is a myth! Sorry Matt!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
ShanaH.Dec 15, 2005
Sounds obvious, but this film is ALL about Kong. It really only comes into its own once he's on screen. And then you're literally in the palm of his hand. If you haven't seen yet, my one recommendation would be - bring Sounds obvious, but this film is ALL about Kong. It really only comes into its own once he's on screen. And then you're literally in the palm of his hand. If you haven't seen yet, my one recommendation would be - bring kleenex! Jack Black - can you get any more one-dimensional?… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
SteveN.Dec 15, 2005
Well. I will say the CG was very good. After that the movie has nothing left except large PLOT HOLES. WARNING: THIN STORY LINE REVEALED NEXT! We spend the first hour or so watching Jack Black swindle everyone and no one is smart enough to Well. I will say the CG was very good. After that the movie has nothing left except large PLOT HOLES. WARNING: THIN STORY LINE REVEALED NEXT! We spend the first hour or so watching Jack Black swindle everyone and no one is smart enough to catch on. Then they finally take a small boat from New York supposedly heading to Singapore! They demonstrate how small the boat is by making Adrien's character stay in one of the cages. Plothole #1. Finally they arrive at (Numb)Skull Island and must navigate through the rocks. The boat is seriously damaged and is taking on water. Plothole #2. Jack Black and his crew sneak off the boat and encounter the natives. The natives speak what sounds like Latin. The natives then begin killing some of the crew for no apparent reason. The captain who said he was leaving them to rot shows up to save them for no apparent reason. Plothole #3. Crew frees the boat from the rocks and instantly is back out to sea. Apparently no longer damaged. Plothole #4. One native is able to pole vault through all of the rocks and capture Naomi. Plothole #5. Not only are the natives fluent in Latin they are also certified brick masons as they were able to build the Great Wall of Skull island without being eaten by all of the monsters. Plothole #6. After feeding Naomi to Kong all of the natives magically disappear. Plothole #7. Captain gives Adrien and Jack 24 hours to get the girl and get back. Brontosaurus and Raptor chase scene involving Jack Black and Adrien Brody and a dozen crew who do not know the correct way to run between the legs of Brontosaurus' while being chased by velociraptors over a cliff that is crumbling. Plotholes #8-12. Loving Kong plays with Naomi then has his feelings hurt and lets her go. Butthole#1. Three T-Rex vs. Kong. Large dinosaurs with vicious teeth that do not puncture monkey flesh. Plothole #13. Two T-Rex swinging from fabulously strong vines hanging upside down and they are still trying to eat Naomi! Plothole #14. Kong shakes crew off of tree over ledge. All minor characters do not know the proper way to fall and die on impact. Jack Black and Adrein Brody and two other crew men ride tree most of the way down to battle giant spiders and tube worms. 25 minutes of shooting spiders off Adrien Brody with a machine gun without hitting him. Captain butt-munch swoops in and saves the day agian. Plotholes #15-20. Kong retreats across the island. Adrien manages to catch up with him in 2 minutes. Plothole #21. Killer bats leave Adrien alone and attack Kong. Plothole #22. Adrien and Naomi escape by hang gliding from a killer bat. Plothole #23. Adrien and Naomi are able to make it all the way back across the island without incident in 30 seconds. Plothole #24. Kong is "captured" by the crew using rocks and rope. He is then given 2 bottles of chloroform with no affect. Plotholes #25-26. Jack Black is able to throw one bottle of chloroform exactly right and knock Kong out. Plothole #27. Story skips to NY as they somehow manage to get a Monkey bigger than their boat back! Plothole #28. I left at this point. If you want to watch a mind numbing piece of garbage listen to the critics and waste your money on this.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ElizabethW.Dec 15, 2005
Horrid, boring and longwinded. Talk about being overhped? Wow this was overdone even larger than KONG himself. Very disappointing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
LassieH.Dec 15, 2005
Other than the neat special effects this movie was an abomination. It was worse than Ted Mack's amateur hour. It was a three act doozy of a movie with putting the audience to sleep for over the first hour, then suddenly taking us to Other than the neat special effects this movie was an abomination. It was worse than Ted Mack's amateur hour. It was a three act doozy of a movie with putting the audience to sleep for over the first hour, then suddenly taking us to Jurassic Park but laughable, then finally no speaking of any kind as NY welcome Kong to the Big Apple to machined gun down from the Empire State Building. As for Black and Brody whoever thought they could act? Ugly.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
BobDec 15, 2005
Lets call a spade a spade. If you are so fascinated by special effects there are plenty of video games you could buy that can entertain your ADD. But to give this crapola high marks when the acting is so awful and the story unoriginal is Lets call a spade a spade. If you are so fascinated by special effects there are plenty of video games you could buy that can entertain your ADD. But to give this crapola high marks when the acting is so awful and the story unoriginal is beyond all imagination. Jack Black and Adrian Brody sucked. Its that pure and simple. The movie dragged on forever. There was no dialogue, no chemistry between the two stars; unless of course you mean The Big Ape and the girl. As for Adrian Brody I think she wanted to puke. The story is dated and totally implausable with more holes than Carter has Little Liver Pills. Don't be blindsighted by the Hollywood Left Wing. This movie is awful and I wouldn't watch it again unless you placed bamboo shoots in both of my eyes. Come to think of it I think the racist natives had bamboo shoots coming out of their eyes and every other oraface in their face. Nestle should be very proud that they sponsored a racist scene. Didn't anyone look at how the natives were portrayed? Talk about sterotyping, oh my God. This movie was preposterous and about two hours too long. Avoid at all costs.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
4
GeraldB.Dec 15, 2005
KONG 2005 hit all the right notes for a summer blockbuster, not surprising given the enormous budget and crew. What is surprising (and depressing) is the sheer number of users who are rating this a 10. If you rated it 10 out of 10- i'm KONG 2005 hit all the right notes for a summer blockbuster, not surprising given the enormous budget and crew. What is surprising (and depressing) is the sheer number of users who are rating this a 10. If you rated it 10 out of 10- i'm assuming that the film is absolutely the greatest film you've ever seen in your entire life. Ever. I'd love to see these users 'Top 10 Films of All Time' lists. I can imagine most of consist entirely of Hollywood films made within the past 20 years. Maybe it's time al lyou "10" raters expanded your cinema horizons a bit. Calling KONG 2005 a "masterpeice' is like calling a Big Mac the pinnacle of gourmet, the epicurean peak. KONG's a super-supersize portion of popcorn in a shiny box. Nothing less, certainly nothing more.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MikeT.Dec 15, 2005
I just want to respond to Matt C, Kevin A, and everyone else that seems to have a problem with the filmaker not showing how they got Kong on the ship & back to New York. What no one has mentioned to these whiners is that the original 1933 I just want to respond to Matt C, Kevin A, and everyone else that seems to have a problem with the filmaker not showing how they got Kong on the ship & back to New York. What no one has mentioned to these whiners is that the original 1933 version didn't show that either. They showed Kong getting knocked out with gas bombs, and then the next scene jumps to the premiere in New York. The 1976 version did show a scene of Kong on a different ship heading back to New York, but it still didn't show how they got him on there. So before you guys go trashing Jackson and Co., realize that they were just following the source material, which by the way is a classic of American cinema. But based on your comments, I doubt you two would know about such things - you probably haven't even seen the original for that matter.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DonDec 15, 2005
A classic tale of horror and beauty.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
GoochDec 15, 2005
Some wackjobs will try to complain and nitpick..but its not my job to get these losers laid. the movie is great....amaxing...yes, some flaws..but overall, it surpasses the original in every way possible. Matt C...get a hooker.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
LauraDec 15, 2005
Really fabulous looking picture. I thought they did a great job making King Kong expressive. However, the pacing was too slow - the movie didn't start really moving until the middle third and the last act was flabby as well. I'd Really fabulous looking picture. I thought they did a great job making King Kong expressive. However, the pacing was too slow - the movie didn't start really moving until the middle third and the last act was flabby as well. I'd see it again, but only at home where I could fast forward through the boring bits.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
RobereDec 15, 2005
Ten are you people mad. During the first hour they should sell NO DOZE to keep you awake. Then we go from NO ACTION to RIDICULOUS ACTION end to end that makes no sense. 3 T-REX's couldn't lay a glove on KONG but a little bottle of Ten are you people mad. During the first hour they should sell NO DOZE to keep you awake. Then we go from NO ACTION to RIDICULOUS ACTION end to end that makes no sense. 3 T-REX's couldn't lay a glove on KONG but a little bottle of Chloroform used against a FIVE TON gorilla knocks him out for a long voyage back to Broadway? And KONG who wouldn't let a bat land on him just stayed calm and collected as they put him in chains? Yeah sure, and while you're buying this crapola there is a bridge I would like to sell you. Someone anyone please tell me there was some dialogue in this movie. If so with who? Could anyone believe that Ann Darrow felt anything for Adrian Brody? Adrian Brody action hero? Please give me a break! As for Jack Black the less said the better. He sucks as an actor and was totally miscast. There are more plot holes in this film that Swiss Cheese. The only saving grace was Kong himself who emitted more emotion through CGI than any of the actors. This film is simply horrible. And I love science fiction and the original King Kong. I can forgive many things but you have all been brainwashed as this movie totally sucks.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JonathanM.Dec 15, 2005
A joy. I only wish it were longer!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DanDec 15, 2005
I'm very sorry, Matt C....Kong is only four tons, which is well within the carrying capacity of any ship half the size of that ship. And if this constitutes a major plot hole to you, then you must have an a mental age of between three I'm very sorry, Matt C....Kong is only four tons, which is well within the carrying capacity of any ship half the size of that ship. And if this constitutes a major plot hole to you, then you must have an a mental age of between three to seven years. And if you want to see a movie with a suck-ass story, watch the Ring "Oooh a killer movie! Be afraid! Be very afraid!" But I digress from my intellectual mauling of Matt C.'s flawed opinions and assumptions. The movie kicked ass people. See it ASAP. Signing off.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ShaneCDec 15, 2005
Aventurous, magical, romantic, if just a trifle overdone - a masterpiece of modern cinema nonetheless.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MattC.Dec 15, 2005
To paraphrase the great film NETWORK, the world is insane. How can a creative team and a studio spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a film, and not one atom of intelligence on the STORY? Films tell stories. Period. Tools such as CGI f/x To paraphrase the great film NETWORK, the world is insane. How can a creative team and a studio spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a film, and not one atom of intelligence on the STORY? Films tell stories. Period. Tools such as CGI f/x can enhance a film, but at the end of the day a story must make sense. In the hands of hack directors such as Jackson and John Woo who have the world fooled, CGI f/x are meant to shut your brain down so you do not notice the insult to your intelligence that is an incoherent story. To Jackson, f/x are a way of saying, "Look at this, look what I can do, people!" All that anyone involved in King King has done is fail at the art of storytelling. You want to see great computer-generated images? Play a video game. When you go to a film you must expect a good story. Raise your standards, people. Until someone can answer how the characters in this film got a ten ton ape on that boat back to NYC, this movie must be called incoherent. At least for this individual, no amount of dinosaurs or giant spiders can numb my brain to that gaping canyon of a plot hole. If such things do not bother you or fail to be detected, you must be a mindless drone conditioned by the press and hype to sweat this dreck. Nice T-rexes, Peter; for those I give you a 1.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JakeDec 15, 2005
Kevin, funny how everything you dissed about the film is a matter of opinion....if the film was so long, would you really want to spend even more time getting the monkey on a boat and spending another hour on the return voyage.....and as for Kevin, funny how everything you dissed about the film is a matter of opinion....if the film was so long, would you really want to spend even more time getting the monkey on a boat and spending another hour on the return voyage.....and as for Donkey Kong, I'd rather play snake verses monkey, even though Donkey Konga can be somewhat entertaining. P.S. the score was a last minute effort by James Newton Howard after Howard Shore abondoned his score last minute. Pretty damn good considering he was rushed to finish it!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
KevinA.Dec 15, 2005
You guys are all giving 9's and 10's? You kidding me? 3 hours of repetitive nonsensical action. An innumerable amount of holes in the script (Screenwriter A: Uh...we got a 5 ton gorrila, or so, how do we mount that on a ship? You guys are all giving 9's and 10's? You kidding me? 3 hours of repetitive nonsensical action. An innumerable amount of holes in the script (Screenwriter A: Uh...we got a 5 ton gorrila, or so, how do we mount that on a ship? Screenwriter B: I know! We skip back to New York and hope the audience doesn't think about it!!), a weak score, poor supporting characters, occasionally misplace cinematography (what was with the "freaky" filming during the native scenes, as if they were supernatural) and an annoying love story. The only entertainment was occasionally from Mr. Kong, but even that was sporadic. Spend 3 hours more usefully - go play Donkey Kong.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
PatrickW.Dec 15, 2005
I am unable to understand the low scores people must have decided to hate it before seeing it!!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
Page:
More From This Movie

81 Critic Reviews

7.4 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 72 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL