King Kong

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

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

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

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

3

SEvansMar 31, 2006

I'm giving Kong a 3 for wasting 3 hours of my time. Brutal.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

FrancoN.Oct 24, 2007

Like the big ape himself, this movie was bloated and flabby. They could have at least cut 45 minutes out of it.

5 of 8 users found this helpful

3

MattY.Feb 11, 2007

The most amazing thing about King Kong is its consistency. This film delivers something genuinely idiotic every 10-15 seconds. After 3 hours of horrible dialogue, flat stock characers, and implausible action scenes, my throat was sore from The most amazing thing about King Kong is its consistency. This film delivers something genuinely idiotic every 10-15 seconds. After 3 hours of horrible dialogue, flat stock characers, and implausible action scenes, my throat was sore from scoffing. Generally, I would not waste my time railing about a Hollywood action movie.. but the amount of MONEY dumped into this movie makes the result more profane than the typical big-budget drivel. Man, you could change the world with $300,000,000... or you could make a few bucks and lower the worlds collective IQ.. Great choice Peter.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

3

BenDec 14, 2005

I know I have to suspend a lot of disbelief for a movie like King Kong, but this viewer and his partner walked out of this film laughing and shaking our heads in amazement at how bad this movie was. Being a completist is the only thing that I know I have to suspend a lot of disbelief for a movie like King Kong, but this viewer and his partner walked out of this film laughing and shaking our heads in amazement at how bad this movie was. Being a completist is the only thing that kept us watching all 187 minutes of this film. Act 2 (on the island) is just a rehash of Jurassic Park with many of the effects done more poorly than that 12 year old film. Ex: Extraneous chase scenes with humans running between the legs of dinosaurs as they are all being chased by velociraptor type creatures (that also run in between the dinosaur's legs) while the ledge that everyone is running on is crumbling under foot. Not just a few yards, but for 5 minutes! This is just ONE of the numerous inexplicable chase/fight scenes that detract from the core story line. And don… 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

3

ArmstrongR.Dec 26, 2005

Mick LaSalle's review of the movie for the San Francisco Chronicle is dead on. Peter Jackson's "Kong" is full of clever ideas, exciting action and touching moments, most of which should have been left on the cutting room floor.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

DuffladJun 30, 2012

The more I watch this movie, the crappier it gets. Why? Because half of it is just screaming.. The acting was crap for the most part, I hate to **** talk Peter Jackson, but sorry man, this one was good for its time, but it has died to me.

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

3

DolphinReviewsJul 25, 2022

This movie has some great moments but they are hidden in a 3 hour messy film.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

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

2

ETDec 30, 2005

This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the above, which is why it lasts 3 hours. This movie shows the worst of human nature, up close and personal, repeatedly, over, and over again. Peter Jackson seems to have a penchant for extended repetition. I can't rate it a '0' because I stayed the whole way through. It was reasonably well produced. Naomi Watts is easy on the eyes. If it had been tightened up a I could have seen rating it a 7 or 8. A *LOT*, I say. But we all know editing is the hardest part, and if people are going to see it anyway, why bother? Spoiler: In the end, Naomi loses the hairy flare-nosed chimp and ends up with the hairy flare-nosed chump. Ta-da.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

HoobyDoobyJan 8, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

2

HowardJan 6, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

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

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

2

BenjitheGreatDec 23, 2005

I am confounded by the positive reviews this movie has gotten from the press. The first hour and twenty minutes or so of the movie are a complete waste of film devoid of any entertainment value. The characters are uninteresting, the dialogue I am confounded by the positive reviews this movie has gotten from the press. The first hour and twenty minutes or so of the movie are a complete waste of film devoid of any entertainment value. The characters are uninteresting, the dialogue sucks, and the scenes are pointless. Take for instance the beginning shots of depression-era New York City. I can't for the life of me think of a single reason for this sequence of annoying shots to be here except for Peter Jackson to show off behind the camera and play around with his 200 million budget. Then when we finally do get to the island and things start to get interesting, it's already too late to regain faith in the film. The audience during this film was laughing and hooting after about an hour until the end of the film. Although this usually annoys me during a movie i cant say I really blame them in this case. It shames me to say that I have lost faith in Peter Jackson as an honest filmaker after this tragedy, as I am a fan of his previous work.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

DonN.Dec 27, 2005

This is one of the worst movies I have ever paid full admission for in my life. The movie is about 1.00-1.30 hrs too long. Most of the scenes are unrealistic and the scene transitions are disjointed at times(i.e. sedating King Kong on the This is one of the worst movies I have ever paid full admission for in my life. The movie is about 1.00-1.30 hrs too long. Most of the scenes are unrealistic and the scene transitions are disjointed at times(i.e. sedating King Kong on the island, but not showing how they got him on the boat and to NY). But my favorite unrealistic/stupid/sappy scene was this 25 ft gorilla who must weigh 10 tons, stepping & sliding across the ice on a pond in Central Park without breaking the ice. Save your money!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

TheWhiskeyManJan 18, 2006

Great Special effects but thats about it. The movie takes a long time to start rolling with some needless footage about the Great Depression that lends nothing to the King Kong story except take up time and space. When they finally get to Great Special effects but thats about it. The movie takes a long time to start rolling with some needless footage about the Great Depression that lends nothing to the King Kong story except take up time and space. When they finally get to King Kong's lair there is some very improbable events. After a while it becomes totally predictable like in the original Star Trek Days where you can tell by the uniform who is going to buy the farm? By the time the movie finally gets us back to NYC the film has lost all its steam. I was looking at my watch hoping, praying for it to end as there was no suspense and it just fell apart. The rave reviews are certainly not deserving unless you are an adolescent unfamiliar with the story. If you want to see a great movie see the 1933 original. It is two hours shorter and ten times better. Peter Jackson did not use his 200M wisely on that you can be certain.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

ZacharyJan 5, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

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

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

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

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

2

ScottC.Dec 21, 2005

Simply mundane.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

AntonioH.Dec 23, 2005

Quite disappointing. I think one reason people feel so agitated by this film is that Jackson spends over an hour building up trying to build up suspense for a story that everyone already knows. If the ape was a mystery, then we could buy all Quite disappointing. I think one reason people feel so agitated by this film is that Jackson spends over an hour building up trying to build up suspense for a story that everyone already knows. If the ape was a mystery, then we could buy all the ominous talk on the ship. Instead, I found myself waiting for the inevitable. And it doesn't help that the audience knows exactly what is coming because they have all seen an endless number of previews. It is truly perplexing that Jackson, who does have a creative vision, decided to focus the main action scene on a battle with T-Rexes. Remake King Kong. Don't remake Jurassic Park. Why spend $200 million on something so unoriginal. And, yes, Jack Black is the wry hipster horribly misplaced in a 1930's era film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

EveK.Dec 26, 2005

What were all those critics smoking? this was the most overstuffed turkey of the holiday season. somebody has to put Peter Jackson on a leash and put him on a budget. maybe then he'd remember that things like a cohesive story and What were all those critics smoking? this was the most overstuffed turkey of the holiday season. somebody has to put Peter Jackson on a leash and put him on a budget. maybe then he'd remember that things like a cohesive story and character development matter even in an action fantasy. everything went on way, way too long. An exposition of over an hour and then when the characters are totally forgettable?? And why did the bats all of a sudden attack Kong, when he's obviously been hanging out with them for eons? There were so many things like that which just didn't make any sense. The scene which would have been really interesting -- how the hell did they get Kong on the ship and keep him alive on the voyage back to New York -- wasn't part of the picture. Sorry, a huge disappointment. Some nice touches for sure, thus the 2 rating instead of a 0, but I cringe at the waste of money.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

BrunoDec 27, 2005

Don't get fooled, the most overrated film I've seen. Hope the critics got at least a lot of money for that. The dialogues in the film are on of the worst ever (If there is nothing, then you've got nothing to lose). There is Don't get fooled, the most overrated film I've seen. Hope the critics got at least a lot of money for that. The dialogues in the film are on of the worst ever (If there is nothing, then you've got nothing to lose). There is not even a second of an art, megalomaniac Jackson have definetly lost his brian. Guy that needs $$$$ to make a film and makes 30 minutes scene where huge dinosaurs fights king kong. No space for character development, dialogs, work with cameras, crafty pictures... all is lost in megalomaniac garbage where 30 feet monster fights another 30 feet monster.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

ChrisC.Jan 16, 2006

Did I see the same movie? What a bloated, self-indulgent, clumsy pile of...well...you get the idea. Laughable dialog. Shots and plots devices stolen from LOTR and Jurassic Park. The relationship between Watts and the monkey was moving, but Did I see the same movie? What a bloated, self-indulgent, clumsy pile of...well...you get the idea. Laughable dialog. Shots and plots devices stolen from LOTR and Jurassic Park. The relationship between Watts and the monkey was moving, but lost in three hours of leaden cliche.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

FantasyDec 14, 2005

Where to begin? Naomi Watts is lovable and darling. What more can I say? The CGI for King Kong is second to none. He and Naomi were the best actors on the set. As for the movie, the suspense of the story is ruined because we all know the Where to begin? Naomi Watts is lovable and darling. What more can I say? The CGI for King Kong is second to none. He and Naomi were the best actors on the set. As for the movie, the suspense of the story is ruined because we all know the story of Beauty and The Beast vis-a-vis King Kong. Been there done that. The movie is three excruciating hours long. The first hour is so slow that you start looking at your watch. When they finally arrive at Skull Island the action is non-stop. The brutality of the natives, which appeared racist, is not suitable for young children or preteens. As for the monsters they are gruesome in nature and there is no way that natives could ever survive or want to survive on this prehistoric island. Jack Black and Adrian Brody are so miscast it is laughable. Black is simply awful as Carl Denim and Adrian Brody as Jack Driscoll the love interest for Naomi, well that is the real Beauty and The Beast. There is no chemistry between the two at all. As for when they return to NY circa 1933, the era is captured perfectly. However, it is a shoot em up kill Kong without any dialogue at all. After 45 minutes I was praying for Naomi to either push the Big Ape off of the Empire State Building or to jump herself to let us go home. This movie is an eternity and the hype far exceeds its worthiness. For some strange reason Spielberg and now Jackson get free passes. The CGI is fantastic but thats all there is. Word of mouth will doom this flick after a blockbuster weekend. I wish my review could be brighter but the truth is the truth. I could never sit through this again even if shown for free on TV.… Expand

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

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

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

2

BillyD.Dec 25, 2005

I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. The beginning was drawn out but okay. The middle might has well have been cutscenes from a videogame. And the ending was very welcome. Shame on all involved for making me hate a fight between dinosaurs and a gargatuan ape. I should have been the easiest sell in the world, but instead I watched my shoes for the last hour of the movie.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

2

sunoblakDec 27, 2017

No acabas teniendo compasión con Kong, es imposible, no de motivos, solo salva a la chica y en verdad nadie sabe por qué. Para ser una película larga me esperaba un mayor arco de personalidad no solo para los actores "secundarios" sino paraNo acabas teniendo compasión con Kong, es imposible, no de motivos, solo salva a la chica y en verdad nadie sabe por qué. Para ser una película larga me esperaba un mayor arco de personalidad no solo para los actores "secundarios" sino para los principales, el único personaje que me ha llamado la atención ha sido el interpretado por Jack Black y Adrien Broody, todos los demás incluido la protagonista (que vale, se muesta con principios básicos inquebrantables pero que sentido tiene que te capture una gorila gigante empieces a bailar para él, el se ría mientras te tira al suelo una y otra vez y acabes arriesgando tu propia vida por él?) me parecen mas planos y genéricos que una explosión en una película de Michael Bay.
El argumento de esta película es poco profundo, clásico y sin sentido teniendo en cuenta lo poco que simpaticé con Kong.
No gastes millones en crear a un Kong hiperrealista y semejantes paisajes para luego hacer una película así.
Bajo mi punto de vista una de las obras mas sobrevaloradas de nuestros tiempos.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

ericandlilJul 26, 2020

I like Jack Black. That is all I can say. The movie was 1/2 cartoon. Some of the scenes were just rediculous Nd not in a good way.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

DavidD.Feb 20, 2006

Gorilla animation fine, tho out of scale most of the time,.Way too long and needlessly gory - bad for kids.

1 of 2 users found this helpful

1

GlennR.Dec 30, 2005

Simply put, 'King Kong' is a really bad movie. It's too long, it's poorly written, the dialog is awkward, there is no chemistry between the stars (with the exception of Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis), and it's miscast Simply put, 'King Kong' is a really bad movie. It's too long, it's poorly written, the dialog is awkward, there is no chemistry between the stars (with the exception of Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis), and it's miscast (it's clear that Jack Black was cast solely for his box office appeal, because he is not at all believable as a high-powered movie producer). Many of the special effects looked no different to me than special effects in movies from the 70's -- or even the 30's for that matter -- so I'm not sure why we're supposed to be wowed by them. Many of the scenes were so drawn out and repetitive that I was actually bored. The subplots -- the romance and the coming of age story -- were listless and uninteresting. The only redeeming parts of the movie were the performances by the beautiful and talented Watts, who did a decent job making me think she actually cared about the ape, and by Serkis, who made the ape seem almost human at times. Other than that, I thought it was a complete waste of $9.75 and three hours. The ending is supposed to be sad, but instead I was mostly happy and relieved that it was over.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful

1

AndyP.Jan 3, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

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

DavidR.Jan 1, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

RockyL.Jan 4, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

BillJan 4, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

DrakeR.Jan 9, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

JoeFeb 5, 2006

If you like brainless effects movies you will appreciate the technical qualitiies and the wierd out of this world fantasy overgrown insects that make sporadic appearances in this waste of time remake. Otherwise, don't spend your money on dreck!

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

davidDec 28, 2005

Everything i wanted to say was said by Steven N. Great review! Every one of those points were right on. There are movies you just have fun with and say "its just a movie". but the action scenes on this one was sooooo bad that i could not stand it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

DuragoJan 12, 2006

Tried very hard to like it. Sorry, just terrible as Jackson detracted from the original story with implausible writing. His choice of actors with the exception of Naomi Watts was awful. Much of the special effects should have been deleted in Tried very hard to like it. Sorry, just terrible as Jackson detracted from the original story with implausible writing. His choice of actors with the exception of Naomi Watts was awful. Much of the special effects should have been deleted in the editing process as the movie was too long. The CGI was good but when combined with the poor dialogue did not create any suspense but rather we kept waiting for the Big Climatic Dive that we knew was coming. With all the money he spent Jackson should have realized that his version was over the top and obtained some help. Instead, this is an amateur production. In less than a month this hyped up blockbuster event has fizzled to a crawl. Word of mouth will doom recouping the 200M invested. At best the studio will only break even as GROSS sales of 150M to date is extremely disappointing. Just a terrible effort by an otherwise talented Mr. Jackson. Let's hope he learned from his mistake?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

LeeG.Jan 13, 2006

Way too long, cheesy, bad dialogue, and the special effects for the most part weren't great. the scene with kong fighting the dinosuars in the trees was the only good part. other than that there's no need to watch this. the iceWay too long, cheesy, bad dialogue, and the special effects for the most part weren't great. the scene with kong fighting the dinosuars in the trees was the only good part. other than that there's no need to watch this. the ice dancing scene at the end was embarrassing.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

EmilC.Jan 19, 2006

First thing is that movie is tooo long.There is 1h10min till you even see King Kong and till then it is dull movie.After King Kong jumps in things doesnt get better.Then it mixes Jurrasic Park with Lord of the Rings monsters and spiders.The First thing is that movie is tooo long.There is 1h10min till you even see King Kong and till then it is dull movie.After King Kong jumps in things doesnt get better.Then it mixes Jurrasic Park with Lord of the Rings monsters and spiders.The fights are stupid , acting is criminaly bad and I think that Peter Jackson had a fame struck to his had so he directed this bad film.Last sad the old and original King Kong was at least 10000 better and some legendary movies like that one should never be remaked.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

MooseJan 4, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

DarylS.Jan 4, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

DeanS.Apr 9, 2006

Stick to Rings . . .not Kings. My wife and I were expecting a decent movie. It was appalling (thank you Simon!). Effects were 'blue screen' corny, the stunt 'rag doll' being thrown around for the blonde was almost Stick to Rings . . .not Kings. My wife and I were expecting a decent movie. It was appalling (thank you Simon!). Effects were 'blue screen' corny, the stunt 'rag doll' being thrown around for the blonde was almost comedic. Made our top 10 Worst Ever Movie list!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

DiegoF.Jan 18, 2007

I'm surprised about the great rating this movie has been given! It's painful to watch it! I couldn't finish the movie because it bored me so much! The only good aspects would be the special effects which you can always tell if I'm surprised about the great rating this movie has been given! It's painful to watch it! I couldn't finish the movie because it bored me so much! The only good aspects would be the special effects which you can always tell if they are computer graphics or miniatures. The first hour of the movie is alright but once the monkey appears it's just bullshit! The fight of Kong with the 3 T-rexes is so bad! The director forgot tha humans have bones. Kong kept throwing Ann into the air and grabbing her with his feet or hands. After the first grab a human would probably be dead! Maybe as a remake it's good, I don't know because I never saw the originall. As a movie it stinks!… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

1

Bobp.Dec 11, 2005

A big monkey fighting dinosaurs plzz ive never seen something so ridiculous like theres still dinosaurs living im a paleontologist and i was shock to see such thing.

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

1

TFCGDec 15, 2005

All I want to know how in God's name did any of these critics give this sorry excuse for a movie a perfect ten? It is sooooooooo long. The first act over an hour long is boring. The second act is a remake of Jurrassic Park but totally All I want to know how in God's name did any of these critics give this sorry excuse for a movie a perfect ten? It is sooooooooo long. The first act over an hour long is boring. The second act is a remake of Jurrassic Park but totally ridiculous as far as a story line goes. And the 3rd act has zero dialogue and shows the obligatory shoot the Big Ape down from the Empire State Building. As for the cast Jack Black and Adrian Brody are awful. The computerized King Kong who isn't even an actor has more emotion and acting skills than either of these sad sack actors. As for Peter Jackson he reminds me of a child who steals the camcorder and shoots a family picnic for six hours and you are forced to watch the entire thing. All I can say is after sitting through this I want to puke. Simply awful.… Expand

0 of 0 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

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

1

RichardG.Dec 27, 2005

Slow, bloated, excruciatingly long. Potentially great special effects, stretched out ad nauseum. Example: With distressed damsel clenched in one hand, Kong takes on a T. Rex with the other. The battle goes on and on... after five minutesSlow, bloated, excruciatingly long. Potentially great special effects, stretched out ad nauseum. Example: With distressed damsel clenched in one hand, Kong takes on a T. Rex with the other. The battle goes on and on... after five minutes another one jumps into the ring: wow, twice the thrill and suspense. The battle rages on for another five minutes, then -- omigod, can you believe it! -- another T Rex joins the fray and we… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

MikeDec 30, 2005

I started to like the movie for the first 30 mins, and then it became very very bad. The fighting between king kong and 3 trex was laughable. The acting is also very very bad, and this is very disappointing because in other films these I started to like the movie for the first 30 mins, and then it became very very bad. The fighting between king kong and 3 trex was laughable. The acting is also very very bad, and this is very disappointing because in other films these actors are great!!! Can it be becasue of the bad directing? The only great thing about this movie are the special effects. nothing else.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

TrudyJan 13, 2006

Other than the excellent CGI done without a script to go with it, the movie just falls off a cliff and dies. Simply awful.

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

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

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

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

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

0

GoffyA.Jan 11, 2006

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

1 of 3 users found this helpful

0

DickieJan 8, 2006

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

1 of 2 users found this helpful

0

CongoGongoJan 9, 2006

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

1 of 2 users found this helpful

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

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

0

RichardE.Jan 1, 2006

I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was simply awful. The directing was some of the worst I have ever seen. And the dialogue was awful too and made no sense. Add to this the film being about twice as long as it should and it all adds up to one big mess. The story of Beauty and the Beast has been told many times. Peter Jackson has not done anything worthy of two hundred million dollars of wasted money. This is as bad a film that I have seen in a long long time. The movie isn't even out two weeks and the theaters are half full. It is a disaster at the box office despite the hoopla by idiots who act as if this is an original idea.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

RickieJan 1, 2006

Remember the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS? Well, KING KONG is AS BAD AS IT GETS! This was one long drawnout farce of a flick. Peter Jackson should be ashamed. No acting, no directing, no dialogue and just plain out STUPID!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

AliceJan 8, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

HassanJan 8, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

HerschelW.Feb 6, 2006

This movie was terrible. A waste of time and money. The screenplay was idiotic. The acting was even worse with Jack Black totally miscast. He is one dimensional and did not fit the role. CGI was okay but not anything spectacular. Adrian This movie was terrible. A waste of time and money. The screenplay was idiotic. The acting was even worse with Jack Black totally miscast. He is one dimensional and did not fit the role. CGI was okay but not anything spectacular. Adrian Brody did not fit as the hero. Jackson really made an iferrior film that is way too long. The depression had nothing to do with the original Kong and was just wasted filler. The Skull Island action scenes were awful and made no sense. Mutant bugs? C'mon give me a break. Where did the natives disappear too and how did their great Wall protect them? Ridiculous plot. Just a poor remake of Jurassic Park. Avoid.… 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

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

SocratesJan 1, 2006

Wow. I couldn't have asked for a worse New Years Eve party than going to to see this movie. It was long and boring as hell, and nothing felt connected; everything seemed like a short, stupid scene that had no relation to the next Wow. I couldn't have asked for a worse New Years Eve party than going to to see this movie. It was long and boring as hell, and nothing felt connected; everything seemed like a short, stupid scene that had no relation to the next ("We're running from dinosaurs! Now we're shooting at King Kong!"). The CGI felt as weightless and lifeless as all CGI in almost every movie I've seen does. Jackson shows just how truly literal and thoughtless he is with this film, for here he could have made any number of important statements regarding a slew of problems in the world. Instead, he opts to make a complete remake of the original film, complete with all the racial stereotypes of the time. Entertainment Weekly just said that Jackson is the new Spielberg, and since Spielberg isn't even done yet, I guess we can all be excited for twice as many overbloated, self serious and cranially incapacitated movies each year. Joy.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

AllenJan 2, 2006

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

1 of 1 users found this helpful

0

WeldonN.Jan 2, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

DunceCapJan 3, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JustinJan 30, 2006

First 20 minutes were entertaining. The subsequent 2,450 truthfully made me long for the most painful and lengthy suicide imaginable. Any reputable reviewer listed above should be ashamed of themselves for giving this thing any form of First 20 minutes were entertaining. The subsequent 2,450 truthfully made me long for the most painful and lengthy suicide imaginable. Any reputable reviewer listed above should be ashamed of themselves for giving this thing any form of praise (Onion AV club, I'm particularly disapointed!). Having $200 million and a vivid imagination for creating mutant bugs does not equal a good film, please remember that when some asshole decides to remake Godzilla...oh wait, they did that.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JaredJan 5, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

FedUpJan 5, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JeffJan 5, 2006

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

1 of 1 users found this helpful

0

sirgeorgeMay 8, 2006

I just saw movie on dvd and its by far the worst movie I've ever seen. did Peter look at the movie before he gave it to the studio? did anyone notice when they tried to capture kong the first time the path they would of tried to carry I just saw movie on dvd and its by far the worst movie I've ever seen. did Peter look at the movie before he gave it to the studio? did anyone notice when they tried to capture kong the first time the path they would of tried to carry him through? what about how did he get to new york? the boat was too small for the crew! what about when kong escaped in new york? it was a thousand cabs in the street then he sees the girl and everything and everyone dissapears at one time! and to top it off, he plays on the ice in new york city. WOW! PETER, WATCH THE MOVIE BEFORE YOU SEND IT IN!… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

0

BrendanD.Apr 20, 2007

The "King Kong" with Faye Wray was a horrible, schlocky story that, quite frankly, demeaned everyone who worked on it, Wray included. The "King Kong" with Jeff Daniels suffered from its own epic delusions, finally crumbling under the weight The "King Kong" with Faye Wray was a horrible, schlocky story that, quite frankly, demeaned everyone who worked on it, Wray included. The "King Kong" with Jeff Daniels suffered from its own epic delusions, finally crumbling under the weight of a horrible direction. But Peter Jackson's take on "King Kong" is the worst version of the most overrated story of all time. First of all, Jackson tries to approach this version with the same eye that Steven Spielberg used in the first hour or so of "Jurassic Park." At this point, however, you can't do that, because "Jurassic Park" did that awe-inspiring animated-animals moment better than any movie before or since -- it still sends a shiver up my spine when I watch the brontosaur jump up to grab the top leaves on the trees. There is no "wow" moment in Jackson's "King Kong" because Jackson tries to cram "wow" moments in every five or six minutes, completely obliterating their impact. Now, I've heard from both critics and members of my own family that the ape was beautifully animated. I say now what I said to them: WHAT?!? Through the entire damned movie, all I could think was, "Wow, that ape doesn't look real at all; it looks like a character from an XBOX-360 game." The world in which Kong lives is likewise hokey, looking like nothing but lame backdrops excised from "Return of the King" (easily the worst and most pretentious of the "Lord of the Rings" movies). Then there's the writing. The story of "Kong" is bad enough, but humanizing the animal only makes it worse. Let's make one thing clear: Kong is a giant ape who appears to have marked intelligence and emotion. But he is still an ape! A friend once told me that this is a stupid reason to dislike the film, but frankly, I don't know how anyone could put the obvious bestial implications out of his or her mind. To be fair, the movie never even comes close to touching the bestiality subject; but the fact that there's even a hint that Naomi Watts's character might be feeling something for the ape is a little bit nausea-inducing. If there bond between Watts and the ape had been more a mother-son kind of relationship, the film might've worked better; but as it stands, it straddles the love relationship without fully dedicating itself one way or the other whilst hinting at the obviously disturbing prospect of an affair between the two. Meanwhile, the script itself is horrendous. There is not one good piece of dialogue throughout the entire film. I'm not sure if Jackson allowed a herd of rabid, mentally-challenged Venusian cows to write it, or if he got so wrapped up in chase scenes and third-rate "Jurassic Park" tyrannosaur knock-offs that he forgot that what's being said is important, but either way, not even Jack Black can save some of the dumbest lines ever uttered in cinematic history. ...Which brings me to my next point: The acting was atrocious. I have to disagree with those who have been pseudo-apologists for Jack Black, Naomi Watts, and Andy Serkis. Each of the three has done brilliant work in the past, but "Kong" is not something they should put on their resumes. Black spends the entire movie looking lost, and Serkis, who deserved a million awards for the Gollum-schizophrenia scene in "The Two Towers," does not make the big ape any more realistic. Even Watts, who at least attempts to bring something to the table, ends up crumbling under the weight of an overwrought, underdeveloped, underwritten script, and her performance suffers precisely because of it. Then there's Peter Jackson. After "The Two Towers," which I still believe was his crowning achievement as a director, I was willing to forgive the tedious final hour of "Return of the King," especially because the final two scenes were so emotionally powerful. "King Kong," however, is a directorial mess. He switches camera angles at all the wrong times, and he doesn't focus on what he should when he should. For example, the penultimate scene, the famous one in which Kong is assaulted by mighty fighter jets, gets lost in its own action; rather than using the beautiful backdrop of New York City as its focal point, it uses Kong, and Watts gets lost. This is no good, especially when the skyline of New York is dolled up to look like something out of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow." And here's another problem: the scale of everything changes when Kong gets to New York City. Kong was easily the largest thing on Skull Island; yet he is all-of-a-sudden minuscule when he climbs up the Empire State Building. This scene actually worked in previous incarnations of "Kong" because the ape wasn't meant to look too real, giving the (admittedly dumb) story a kind of fairy-tale feel to it. Here, however, Jackson has made a lot of attempts to show Kong's fur waving in the wind, his eyes twitching and blinking like a human's, his mouth occasionally twisting up into a man-like smile. You can't have it both ways! The ape has more distinct mannerisms than any Kong before it, and yet the Empire State Building looks like it could reach the Cloud City from "The Empire Strikes Back." Finally, as many have pointed out, there's the running time. Yes, about a good hour could've been trimmed off the movie and still gotten Jackson's point across, potentially better. But the first forty-five minutes are a snore, too, even though there's lots of plot happening; likewise, the return to New York City, before Kong shows up, is a snoozer, although it contains the entire setup for the Grand Finale. And that's not even counting the hour and a half (or so) Jackson spends on all the different weirdo Skull Island creatures. The point is, the movie plods along rather than meanders; and the action sequences, far from advancing the plot, make the story come to an absolute stand-still in favor of bang-bang-bang action. Honestly, I cannot fathom what possessed critics (or anyone else) to recommend this film. It is one of the most pretentious, boring, stupid movies ever made, and Jackson ought to issue a bigger apology for this than George Lucas needs to for "The Phantom Menace." We live in a digital age, which could've given Jackson the chance to bring something new to the Kong mythos. Instead, he simply rehashes what's already done (and actually kind of dumbs it down), crafting a movie that might've looked good in 1933, but that now just makes me want to throw popcorn at the screen and sit there for another three hours demanding that Jackson compensate me for the time spent watching this awful mess.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

King Kong

User Reviews