King Kong

0

AdrianL.Dec 16, 2005

Are you people mad? This is one of the most boring movies of all time. $200M was spend on GCI as for the acting Wooden Indians would have been better. There is no chemistry and other than King Kong and Jurassic Park there is very little Are you people mad? This is one of the most boring movies of all time. $200M was spend on GCI as for the acting Wooden Indians would have been better. There is no chemistry and other than King Kong and Jurassic Park there is very little else. Not worthy of your time or money.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

NancyG.Dec 18, 2005

Very bad! Sentence this one to Cinema Jail with no parole! You'd get more emotion out of playing Halo for 3 hours.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

GalegraS.Dec 19, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

StevenS.Dec 20, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

KingBongDec 20, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

BillnTedDec 23, 2005

Wow. People are saying this remake is imaginative and original? The fact that it's a REMAKE aside, this movie is taken from scraps of every stupid film Jackson seems to have been able to think of, from Jurassic Park to his own Lord of Wow. People are saying this remake is imaginative and original? The fact that it's a REMAKE aside, this movie is taken from scraps of every stupid film Jackson seems to have been able to think of, from Jurassic Park to his own Lord of the Rings trilogy. Jackson is the most overrated director around right now (since some people are finally on to Spielberg).… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

WendyDec 23, 2005

This movie was an abomintion. It was awful. Peter Jackson has lost touch with reality if he thinks this was good. Truly awful. Stay far away. The audience was laughing and walking out.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

LadyLibertyDec 25, 2005

Peter Jackson joins Steven Spielberg and George Lucas as an "over the hill let me show you how I can waste money" no talent with special effects moronic movies. First he bores us to tears with over an hour on boring stuff. Then he takes us Peter Jackson joins Steven Spielberg and George Lucas as an "over the hill let me show you how I can waste money" no talent with special effects moronic movies. First he bores us to tears with over an hour on boring stuff. Then he takes us to Skull Island or should I say back to Jurassic Park and presents some of the lamest writing this side of War Of The Worlds. And if this isn't bad enough he totally miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. The last hour you just can't wait for the Big Ape to jump off of the Empire State Building. There's no dialogue of any consequence and Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow is unbelievable climbing up the steps to the top of the building in the dead of winter in a shear dress and high heel shoes. And yes, if you still buy this garbage, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

BobbieSocksDec 25, 2005

This is a mad house. Did you people actually see the same film that I witnessed. It was awful. Everything was stolen from another movie. The script was lame, the acting wooden, and as for the directing, Peter Jackson should find a new This is a mad house. Did you people actually see the same film that I witnessed. It was awful. Everything was stolen from another movie. The script was lame, the acting wooden, and as for the directing, Peter Jackson should find a new career. There was no suspense because we all know how it ends. Now if Jackson had jumped off the Empire State Building now that would have been an ending to remember. Jackson stay home in New Zealand because if this is all you can turn out with a budget of two-hundred million you are in deep trouble. Avoid this turkey at all costs.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

StacyR.Dec 20, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

WarrenL.Dec 30, 2005

Somebody has lost their mind and I know it isn't me. This was one of the worst movies ever made. I know you loved it because of the special effects? Big deal. There is more to a movie than CGI. The first act over 70 minutes long is Somebody has lost their mind and I know it isn't me. This was one of the worst movies ever made. I know you loved it because of the special effects? Big deal. There is more to a movie than CGI. The first act over 70 minutes long is totally boring. Who cares about showing signs of the depression. How does that come into play in King Kong other than the original was made in 1933? Secondly, Jack Black with his one dimensional stare was simply awful. After the first boring act is over with get to Skull Island aka Jurassic Park. Did I actually see natives in black paint? And the stampeding dinosaurs shown the same loop three different times. C'mon. Then for your entertainment pleasure watch as Kong fights not one, not two but three T-Rex's all at the same time. And if that wasn't enought the vampire bats attacking Kong in his lair but not our hero's was over the top. But then not to be outdone wasn't it a nice touch with the Captain swinging on a vine while shooting the spiders off of our hero's without one bullet even grazing them? And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to sleep. Can anyone explain how he did not drown or how they lifted him on the damged little tug boat that could? And if you want to believe that how did they feed him or contain him on his journey back to NYC? Do you want to tell me that they magically obtained steel chains that tied him to the damaged boat? Well, if that's not bad enough when he arrives in NYC they had to have rehearsals before the native dance number with the blonde, not Ann Darrow, sacrifice right? How come he never reacted that entire time. I guess he waited for opening night to destroy NYC? And if that wasn't enough, the ending in the winter with Ann without a coat in a light spring dress with high heels ascending up the ladder to the top of the tallest building in NYC was just the icing on the cake. Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. And by the way, where did the natives disappear to? Remember that they risked life and limb to kidnap Ann for Kong but somehow vanished when he got hit with a little teenie weenie bottle of chloroform. You people raving about this trailer trash of a movie are totally insane. You are desparately in need of some professional help.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

MallardD.Dec 30, 2005

This movie was hilarious for all the wrong reasons. It needs the Mystery Science Theater III treatment in the worst way. I burst out laughing when Kong sees Naomi Watts approaching him down a surprisingly deserted NYC street in the middle of This movie was hilarious for all the wrong reasons. It needs the Mystery Science Theater III treatment in the worst way. I burst out laughing when Kong sees Naomi Watts approaching him down a surprisingly deserted NYC street in the middle of winter wearing a flimsy dress and a halo of light behind her. Where is Servo when we need him? The ONE moment I was waiting for didn't even happen: seeing Kong land on Joe Black as he hits the street after falling from the ESB. All in all a King Kong pile of crap.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

RalphieBoyJan 11, 2006

King Krap is more like it!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

HoraceJan 10, 2006

Awful and laughable. A waste of my time.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JillH.Jan 1, 2006

Recently, Ebert gave 0 stars to Wolf Creek because he found it dehumanizing that people would wish to see people cruelly killed. Yet in King Kong, a movie he and so many others hailed as a masterpiece, we are supposed to cheer for the Recently, Ebert gave 0 stars to Wolf Creek because he found it dehumanizing that people would wish to see people cruelly killed. Yet in King Kong, a movie he and so many others hailed as a masterpiece, we are supposed to cheer for the killer, a monstrous ape that kills A LOT of innocent people in this 3 hour long snooze fest. Humanizing, indeed.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

TedJan 1, 2006

What an absolute disaster...

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

NumbyJan 11, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JembleC.Jan 1, 2006

Horrendous.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

SybelzJJan 1, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

HadenJan 1, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

DraculaJan 18, 2006

Why couldn't they have had Bella Lugosi swoop in on top of the Empire State Buiding bite Naomi Watts in the neck, swat Adrian Brody off the buiding and then grab Kong and fly him back to Skull Island? Sounds ridiculous? Is it any more Why couldn't they have had Bella Lugosi swoop in on top of the Empire State Buiding bite Naomi Watts in the neck, swat Adrian Brody off the buiding and then grab Kong and fly him back to Skull Island? Sounds ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous than the crap Peter Jackson fed us with this tedious bore of a turkey. Dracula and the Wolfman v. King Kong. Frankenstein can take on the winner. Yuk!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

SidiotJan 3, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

ManF.Jan 5, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

TonyMontanaJan 5, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

QueenieJan 9, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

DanielSApr 7, 2006

I don't understand how people liked this movie. It was boring and stupid. Just when you thought it was time for a fight scene to end, it went for another 20 minutes. It was terrible and I like fight scenes.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

KatherineJul 28, 2006

Why did they make ANOTHER King Kong? I mean it has been made about 8 times, and everyone knows how it ends. Kong dies at the end. So it's not like you changed it so much. It ends the same. So why don't the directors of today just Why did they make ANOTHER King Kong? I mean it has been made about 8 times, and everyone knows how it ends. Kong dies at the end. So it's not like you changed it so much. It ends the same. So why don't the directors of today just stop taking other peoples ideas and be original.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

0

EricK.May 11, 2008

A disgrace to the original, which is one of the greatest films of all time.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

0

SpongeeeDec 14, 2005

Crap! Racist Crap!! Horrible film making!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

AmberlabDec 15, 2005

All I want to know is did the professional critics watch what I did last night? They have to be paid under the table to write the reviews they did. It's way too long with terrible wooden acting and young children will be terrified at All I want to know is did the professional critics watch what I did last night? They have to be paid under the table to write the reviews they did. It's way too long with terrible wooden acting and young children will be terrified at the unrealistic middle part of the movie featuring a return to Jurrassic Park. That is - if they're still awake after the first hour. This films a total joke. The less said the better.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

AmosnAndyDec 17, 2005

Alright, it's obvious that this movie was made with a great love of the original King Kong and the 1930's in general. I found it disgusting, then, that Jackson seemed to ignore the fact that racial stereotypes were so prevalent in Alright, it's obvious that this movie was made with a great love of the original King Kong and the 1930's in general. I found it disgusting, then, that Jackson seemed to ignore the fact that racial stereotypes were so prevalent in the films of that time. In this 3 hour (felt like 10) "epic" we witness scenes of primitive brutality at the hands of the Skull Island natives. These people were obviously using the leftover Ureki makeup from LOTR, so they look impish, filthy and evil. There is no humanizing them; every single last one of them, from the children to the elders, have only two purposes- to first be evil and try and kill our heroes so we hate them, and then to be heroically gunned down by the captain and crew so we cheer. I mean... am I the only one who felt that was at best extremely ignorant and at worst akin to reading "The White Man's Burden"? Jackson even threw in the stereotypical "Chinaman", with a little cap and Fu Manchu who speak like "Me rike fried wice!" and has one line of dialogue and is never once fleshed out into a real character and then dies. Well, no matter... continue giving out 10's. Peter Jackson could direct anything and it'd be seen as a masterpiece by all these stupid critics. This movie's emotions, action and special effects are on par with the 1998 Godzilla movie, but because Jackson and it's 3 hours long it must be BREATHTAKING! ASTONISHING! I WAS N THE EDGE OF MY SEAT!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

TwoHankiesDec 17, 2005

C'mon this is the best con job since the invention of the pet rock. There was no acting, no originality, and certainly nothing more than an expensive video game. The critics must have had a lobotomy to have liked this crap. Avoid.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

0

StanC.Dec 18, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

HarrisonDec 18, 2005

Embark on an epic adventure created in collaboration with Academy Award-winning director Peter Jackson and based on the Universal Pictures' film. Survive as Jack in a world crawling with predators and live the legend as Kong. Use Embark on an epic adventure created in collaboration with Academy Award-winning director Peter Jackson and based on the Universal Pictures' film. Survive as Jack in a world crawling with predators and live the legend as Kong. Use weapons, traps, and your team wisely to survive in first-person as Jack. Break jaws, slam enemies, and throw massive objects in Kong's colossal third-person battles. [Ubisoft] This is KONG the video game that Peter Jackson released this past November. As for the movie, it's about the same as the game. Both are awful. Terrible self promoting garbage from the new master of disaster. This movie is way too long tedious and boring. Nothing new as it is same old same old.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

KingDongDec 18, 2005

The original film is racist and this new version just highlights it. White people in black paint running around the island like crazy people...what is this??? The 50s??? Black Face??? Come on!!! A big ape who submits to a white woman and is The original film is racist and this new version just highlights it. White people in black paint running around the island like crazy people...what is this??? The 50s??? Black Face??? Come on!!! A big ape who submits to a white woman and is saved by a white man...and then turns on the whities who helped him...how dare you ape, turn on the good ol white folks. This is racist and its just a bad film. CGI sucks, there is no soul, Jack Black is horrible, only thing I like is Ms. Watts...but she cant make up for this crap film that all these racist critics are giving 10s to. Get real people! If you like this movie that much...no wonder Bush is still president.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

MarkR.Dec 18, 2005

Absolutely brutal. No special effects can make up for bad acting, terrible directing, no orignality and plot holes you can drive a Mack truck through. And that first hour how boring get you get. As for the rest of it, if I want to be Absolutely brutal. No special effects can make up for bad acting, terrible directing, no orignality and plot holes you can drive a Mack truck through. And that first hour how boring get you get. As for the rest of it, if I want to be entertained with a video game that doesn't make any sense I can do that for a lot less than what I paid to see this crapola.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

0

SethB.Dec 19, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JackW.Dec 19, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

IssacDec 21, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

DonM.Dec 22, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

WyattEarpDec 23, 2005

The special effects were excellent but then again so is ice cream. What happens to you if you devour a full gallon of ice cream? You get deathly ill that's what. And that is what happend with this remake trash of a movie. The suspense The special effects were excellent but then again so is ice cream. What happens to you if you devour a full gallon of ice cream? You get deathly ill that's what. And that is what happend with this remake trash of a movie. The suspense part is totally gone because unless you are in an isolation chamber somewhere everyone knows the tragic story of Beauty and The Beast vis-a-vis King Kong. So no suspense. Enter Peter Jackson with his $200 million budget of toys. Peter says I'll show them what I can do. And for the next three hours he first puts us to sleep with irrelevant shots of the depression of 1933 which has nothing to do with King Kong. He gives us actors who can't act with some of the clumsiest writing this side of the 21st century. If that isn't bad enough, after over an hour of crapola he finally takes us Skull Island vis-a-vis a rip off of Jurassic Park. He comes with special effect after specail effect ad nauseam. The story line with these special effects are totally implausable. By this time the audience is actually laughing at his stupidity. And if this wasn't bad enough somehow he manages to skip over getting Kong back on the little boat that could taking him back so that he could destroy NYC in the dead of winter with Ann Darrow in a sheer dress with high heels on top of the Empire State Building. The only thing that could have saved this movie was if when Kong tried to save her, instead she put her finer down her throat and jumped. Now that would have been the fitting ending to this trailer trash of an effort because that is how I and most of the audience felt on the way out of the theater. I actually saw people with bags over their heads not wanting to be identified. Horrible.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

LeroyDec 24, 2005

Only three hours too long otherwise it was great.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

LameBrainDec 26, 2005

Lamest movie of the year. Too bad to be believed. Acting was atroicious. Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself. A waste of 2 hundred million bucks. Movie is over 3 hours long and the first third is duller than moss growing on a rock. Lamest movie of the year. Too bad to be believed. Acting was atroicious. Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself. A waste of 2 hundred million bucks. Movie is over 3 hours long and the first third is duller than moss growing on a rock. The second act is a return to Jurassic Park with some of the stupidest written scenes ever created. A trained monkey could have written a script better than this. By the time they reach NY the movie should have capsized but we are forced to watch a last act without any dialogue. I think I saw Adrian Brody looking at his watch hoping Kong would jump to his death. I think he wishes it could have been him to be associated with such a lame effort. Avoid like the plague.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

WorstOfAllTimeDec 27, 2005

Without question the stupidest most ridiculous movie ever made. It is an attack on anyone with even an ounce of intelligence. This is a remake of a remake. Everyone knows the story and how it ends. There is no suspense. And the special Without question the stupidest most ridiculous movie ever made. It is an attack on anyone with even an ounce of intelligence. This is a remake of a remake. Everyone knows the story and how it ends. There is no suspense. And the special effects are over the top without a story line connected to it that makes any sense. For example do you think the vampire bats would attack Kong or the weak humans who are simply standing there watching? Do you think you could actually catch a ride on a bat and land gently on the water. Do you think one bottle of chloroform put the Big Baby to sleep. And if it did how did they lift him on the small damaged boat that didn't even have a room for Adrian Brody? How did they get him through the door? Why did he not destroy the boat as he did NYC? What did they feed him? If the steel chains did not hold him how did they transport him to the theater without his destroying NYC? How did they rehearse? Why did the natives not try to protect him? Where did they go? This movie had more plot holes than swiss cheese. But you want us to believe that this was a good movie? Why because two-hundred million dollars was spent on bells and whistles with dumbed down special effects? This was eaily the second worst movie of the year behind War of the Worlds. Avoid at all costs.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JeremyDec 28, 2005

Hated It. Way toooooooo looong.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

AndyH.Dec 31, 2005

Tens? You people are giving this trashy movie a ten as in Gone With The Wind? You call this a perfect movie? If so there is a bridge I want to sell you? First off this movie is way over the top and too long. Secondly, it is boring and Tens? You people are giving this trashy movie a ten as in Gone With The Wind? You call this a perfect movie? If so there is a bridge I want to sell you? First off this movie is way over the top and too long. Secondly, it is boring and downright laughable. The dialogue is nonexistant. The acting is awful especially Jack Black. Adrian Brody simply in unbelievable as the love interest for Ann Darrow. There is no chemistry. As for Skull Island it doesn't compute. The CGI is over the top. The writing is laughable. The native scene is racist pure and simple. They are canibals who worship Kong. Why? How did they build that giant wall without being eaten by all the other monsters that inhabit the Island. Perhaps in the sequel when Peter Jackson tells us what we saw was a dream that this will be explained right? Secondly, if Kong is the true master of all the monsters how come he is the only Ape on the island? Where are the others? How was he born? Where are his parents? His brothers? His sisters? His children? His mate? I guess he was in danger of becoming extinct because of Jack Black types taking him to other major cities to destroy them? Anyway the circus stunts were great with the same reel of the dinasaur stampede repeated three times. Then Kong fights 3 T-Rexs with one hand while holding Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) in the other. Yeah right? And didn't you love how the Captain suddenly became an action hero shooting spiders with one hand while swinging on the vine with the other. I tell you this was something else. Then the damaged boat takes Kong back to NY. How did they get him on the boat? How did they keep him from jumping ship? Where did they keep him? Remember this was a little boat that was damaged on the rocks when it came to Skull Island? He couldn't fit through any doorway? He couldn't fit in one of those cages him being a 4 ton gorilla? What did they feed him? How come he didn't destroy the boat? They had no chains to hold him? Explain it to us? Then he comes to NY and destroys the City on cue. As for Naomi in a flimsy dress and high heels, well, after everything else I saw, why not in in the middle of winter without a coat. The only thing missing was one of those vampire bats flying by the Empire State Building and Kong grabbing hold like Adrian did and being flown back to Skull Island with the natives chanting Kong - Kong - Kong! By the way, the natives that worshipped Kong where did they disappear too when the Big Ape fell asleep? I guess Peter Jackson's budget ran out. And you idiots gave this movie a ten? I only wish Peter Jackson could have been eaten by one of his wormy creatures from the head down? This movie was a disgrace. And finally what does Circa NYC 1933 have to do with the remake of the remake of King Kong? Was it germain to the story of Kong? Absolutely Not! But Jackson decided since the original was shot in 1933 why not spend some more money on some useless trailer trash. This effort was ugly.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

TrainerFredJan 11, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

IronikJan 21, 2006

Disaster. How could Jackson make such a silly film. It is nice that he can play with a computer but that does not make a good movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JohnH.Dec 14, 2005

This is just bad. Mr. Jackson has failed us again.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

MichaelJ.Dec 18, 2005

This is quite possibly the worst time I've had at the theaters all year. I didn't think any movie could drag on for so long and be as pointless as Brothers Grimm, but this one out does it by being longer, dumber, and more pointless This is quite possibly the worst time I've had at the theaters all year. I didn't think any movie could drag on for so long and be as pointless as Brothers Grimm, but this one out does it by being longer, dumber, and more pointless than I could have imagined. Is it the fake, laughable "love" story that's causing everyone to freak out about this movie and proclaim it an instant classic? The repetitive, headache inducing "action" scenes? Or the hillarious off target "acting"? Expect this to rack up a lot of Oscars, for it's as bloated and self-serious as Return of the King, and it seems everyone in the movie business has been paid off by Jackson and company.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

LordLusciousDec 19, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

TheProfitcyDec 21, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

HolidayDocDec 22, 2005

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

StormIestDec 26, 2005

Don't be fooled. This movie is terribly written, and when the visuals seem plastic and fake, and they often do, there is absolutely nothing to keep your attention on screen. Peter Jackson has never made a good film. He just doesn't get it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

FreaksterDec 27, 2005

Peter Jackson is kidding if he thinks this is quality entertainment. People were laughing out loud and walking out in the middle. The casting was awful and the acting even worse. As for the dialogue I only wish I could criticize it but there Peter Jackson is kidding if he thinks this is quality entertainment. People were laughing out loud and walking out in the middle. The casting was awful and the acting even worse. As for the dialogue I only wish I could criticize it but there wasn't any except for some imbosylic yaking by the horrendous Jack Black. This movie is a total disgrace. If you want to watch stupid moronic nonsense watch the video game. This movie is terrible.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

BoskoDec 27, 2005

I don't see why any critic would praise this film but pan (as they all did) Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" or the "Godzilla" remake. Those movies were more believeable than this one. This is the dumbest film of all time. I don't see why any critic would praise this film but pan (as they all did) Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" or the "Godzilla" remake. Those movies were more believeable than this one. This is the dumbest film of all time. There's not one character that didn't belong in a Hanna Babera cartoon.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

KeithL.Dec 27, 2005

I waited over 4years for this when I heard Peter jackson was going to make this movie and...wow. I can't put into words how over the top and bad King Kong was. 3 hrs of my life wasted. I'll never get it back. Don't believe the I waited over 4years for this when I heard Peter jackson was going to make this movie and...wow. I can't put into words how over the top and bad King Kong was. 3 hrs of my life wasted. I'll never get it back. Don't believe the hype or the critics, the studio paid handsomely for those write ups no doubt because this a brainless farce that drags and lopes with no sense of grounding whatsoever. To make matters worse, it looks hastily prepared. The special effects aren't very special in many spots and, hey now, the story lags too. Bad, bad, bad, and it sucks too. Did I mention that we all hated it? This is as bad as the following: The Mummy, The Hulk, Batman & Robin, Godzilla 1998, and ANY of the Star Wars prequels (admittedly I have not seen Episode III--and don't need or want to). It actually makes Dino DeLaurentis' 1976 version look like pure genius. Peter Jackson, what have you done? Thank god it was $5 night. BTW: Funny story. I left to pee during the excruciating bug attack sequence and there were people in the hallway harassing theatre emplyees for their money back over this. One guy said, "you mean to tell me I have to sit in there for another hour and not get some kind of compensation?" I busted out laughing and expressed my sentiments. If I had to sit through it, WE ALL had to sit through it. … Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

LeslieL.Dec 31, 2005

Its so ridiculous it is frightening. Obviously the critics are bought and paid for. The acting was attrocious, the directing even worse and the plot a total joke. If there was dialogue I must have missed it because I did start to nod off Its so ridiculous it is frightening. Obviously the critics are bought and paid for. The acting was attrocious, the directing even worse and the plot a total joke. If there was dialogue I must have missed it because I did start to nod off during the excruciating long first hour. By the time we get to Skull Island the movie turns into a comedy. Peter Jackson is a joke.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

GreenlemonadeJul 3, 2011

This is my least favorite movie of all time.
In his attempt to make King Kong more like Lord of the Rings, Jackson has made an epic exposition of unbelievable events and stupidity. This movie is at least 1 hour too long and every actionThis is my least favorite movie of all time.
In his attempt to make King Kong more like Lord of the Rings, Jackson has made an epic exposition of unbelievable events and stupidity. This movie is at least 1 hour too long and every action scene is less plausible than the last, removing all tension and immersion. There are no likable protagonists, villains or heroes and the plot and character development are more childish than an episode of Sponge Bob.
I truly hate this pile of crap that King Kong himself could not excrete from his massive anus.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

0

MorrowwindAug 3, 2020

1. Jack black shouldn't have come anywhere near this , he feels so out of place its hard to look at him without wincing. 2. The natives shouldn't forced into abject Destituteness making them forced to be savages , they should just be savages1. Jack black shouldn't have come anywhere near this , he feels so out of place its hard to look at him without wincing. 2. The natives shouldn't forced into abject Destituteness making them forced to be savages , they should just be savages ! Jackson you left wing coporate hack , the fun things about the movie was primordial feeling on the island , savage tribes , dinosaurs , lost civilizations etc. 3. The film feels weird , disjointed and way too long , using poorly organized bits of humor like the **** awful and weird bit with the brontosaurs followed by a death of some **** made to feel animatedly sad 4. You don't need a controlled environment and CGI for everything , even those **** at disney accomplished that with the pirates of the caribbean movies. How can we have multi million dollar films like the fantastic adventures of mr fox and coraline yet we can't get the same treatment for a king kong movie , also didn't we burn george lucas in effigy for this horse **** for the prequels yet Jackson gets away it cuz hes so gosh darn quirky and loveable. Thinking about the creation of this movie dosen't give me a personal feeling of love for his work when watching the orginal , it makes me wanna sucker punch him in the jaw for ruining it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

King Kong

User Reviews