View Photo Gallery
Remove ads with our VIP Service
Share This Page
Academy Award® Winner
Peter Jackson's vision of the classic story of a great ape-monster captured in the wild and brought to civilization where he meets a tragic fate.
Starring Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody... View more >
Please Note: Reader Reviews are submitted by the readers of The BigScreen Cinema Guide and represent their own personal opinions regarding this movie, and do not represent the views of The BigScreen Cinema Guide, or any of its associated entities.
Dec 12, 2005
It's just.........out their.
Dec 17, 2005
Special effects are great, as well as the story itself. Can be a little long at times, but still a must see on the big screen.
Dec 18, 2005
All I can say about this movie is that it is way too long . To add insult to injury , Jack Black is terrible in this picture. It has a slow start. You do not know if you are watching Jurrassic Park 4, Food of the Gods or King Kong at times in this film. King Kong made Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes Look like a masterpiece. I think the positive reviews come from fans of Lord of the Rings. These people feel obligated to "Pat" Peter Jackson on the back. He should be kicked in the rear for this stinker. I would have loved known what a director like Sam Raimi could have done with this project...oh well wishful thinking......wait for the rental if you must see this one otherwise skip it completely.
Dec 18, 2005
Everything is bigger on Skull Island. The bugs, the lizards, the bats, and even the monkeys. This third screen version of the Kong legend is by far the longest, but that didn't detract at all from my enjoyment of it. Many critics have complained about the 70-minute setup before the title character appears, but this allows mastermind Peter Jackson to establish his characters and build buttloads of suspense before the big guy's appearance. And once he shows up, "Kong" never looks back. It's set piece after spectacular set piece. I can honestly say that between the T-Rex throwdown, the pit of giant insects (masterfully directed without any background music; all you hear is the clicking of giant insect feet across the ground), and the Empire State Building finale, this move has the best action scenes I've seen in years. The only thing I can think of that comes close to matching these scenes is Jackson's own Helm's Deep sequence in Two Towers.
Sure, the special effects are amazing here, but the movie's success lies in its ability to make Kong a character the audience can care about. Ironic, how a movie about the danger of man's ever-progressing technology can be best made using that same advanced technology. Kong's facial expressions are simply fantastical, and Andy "Gollum" Serkis's motion captured movements lend even more believability to the creature. The other effects work for the most part. The aforementioned Brontosaurus pileup looks like it could've spent a little more time in the special effects shop; there were a couple moments where I thought I could actually see the 1's and 0's.
There were a couple of other problems with the movie, but they're very minor and almost don't merit mentioning. First, Jackson insists on tyring to establish everyone as a character. Remind me why I care about the mysterious yet tenacious lad who really really wants to shoot a gun? Some of the characters a flat, stock characters that Jackson tries to make into something more when it's simply not necessary. Also, the ones who aren't developed seem to pop up out of nowhere. Just when you think everyone's been trampled and eaten and thrown off cliffs except for the characters whose names you know, here comes another army of guys with guns. The ship's not that big, guys. Obviously these are minor quibbles, because "King Kong" works so stupendously well that I had to sit and think of what the drawbacks were here.
So here's the lowdown: Yes, it is long, but it is not painfully long. The three hours whizzed by and I immediately wanted to watch it again. The performances are wonderful all around, and I was hugely impressed by Jack Black, playing someone other than Jack Black for a change. He could pull a Jim Carrey one of these days and go dramatic. Basically, "Kin Kong" is the most fun I've had at a movie since "Sin City", but "Sin City" was the most fun I've had at a movie pretty much ever, so that's saying something for Jackson's achievement. See "King Kong", you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll squirm in fear, and you'll be supporting the most visionary mind working in Hollywood today. **** out of four, minus one-tenth of a star for the limitless army that's hidden aboard their ship.
PS Just so I'm not the only one who sees it, look for the reference to Jackson's spectacularly splatterific early film "Dead-Alive" in the cargo hold near the beginning of the movie. A crate labeled "Sumatran Rat-Monkey". Awesome.
Dec 19, 2005
Dec 21, 2005
If you cut about 1 1/2 hoursoff this movie you might have an OK movie. King Kong was so drawn out I found myself looking at my watch thinking, "How much longer can this go on". Peter Jackson proved that a 3 hour or more movie can be a necessity to tell the whole story with LOTR. But not every movie needs to be that long. I much perfered the original 1933 Kong. Jack Black was totally mis-cast, I would rather have seen Bruce Cambell in that roll. He would have brought more life to the character.
Naomi Watts was OK but her roll some times became silly. Adrien Brody is a very good actor and he did the best he could with a roll that did not suit him at all. The best characters were the ships captian and his first mate.
Another interesting character could have been Jimmie and his relatioship with Hayes. They threw out some interesting clues about Jimmie but just dropped them.
All in all Kong could have been one of the great remakes. But over the top special effects ( way to many dinos and bugs) and bad dicisions amde by the director as well as the screen writer made this movie a big YAWNER...
Mr. Jackson not every movie needs to be more that 3 hours long.
Dec 26, 2005
Dec 27, 2005
This film has Naomi Watts and special effects. The other characters and the dialog are weak. The story has too many holes. The action sequences have too many physically impossible and virtually improbably events.
Peter Jackson can wow us visually, but he shows us nothing beyond that in Kong.
I'm giving it a "stay away" because the film should have been so much more. I view it as missed opportunity and wasted potential.
Dec 27, 2005
I thought this movie rocked! The special effects were amazing. I normally don't like it when movies have a lot of special effects but this one was an exception. The whole part on skull island was non-stop action from the time they arrived to the time that they left. That part is actually kind of creepy. I thought this movie did not have have a very strong plot, but Peter Jackson did a great job with what he had to work with. If you are looking for a fun time at the theater and you don't mind giving 3 hours of your time, I would highly recommend this film. It's fun!
Dec 29, 2005
I agree with "Sinamax".
Dec 30, 2005
Personally when i saw this remake coming out i was anticipating a better adaptation than this. This movie to me was worse than a Jim Carey movie marathon on TnT. It was Slow in the beginning, it was LONG in the middle, and we all knew the ending. i was ready to leave this movie 1 1/2 hours into the 3 hour torture test, but my wife made the valid point of the $17 to get in, and the $13 popcorn. The highlight of the movie was listening to the occassional snore from the old man infront of me. Stay away from this hack job of a movie and if u need something to do with $30 change the oil in your car !
Jan 5, 2006
"King Kong" is another great fantasy movie from Director Peter Jackson. Who gave us the "Lord of the Rings Trilogy. There are a lot of stuff that I like, but what I like most is that Director Jackson has remake the 1933 movie into a love story. The only thing that changed is the updated special effects, which doesn't exist back in 1933. The monsters are big. Even the Bugs are big. Just try to swat one on Skull Island, which is more dangerous than the original. Even if you didn't see the 1933 movie, you will still have a great time with the remake. I follow the Peter Jackson version with the original in mind. The theme of the movie is the same as the orginal. "It was Beauty that Kill the Beast." A line that was echo back in 1933 is still true today. You're also welcome to read my review of the 1933 version of "King Kong," in the Big Screen Cinema Guide.
Jan 8, 2006
It was a great movie!! But it was the kind of movie you eather loved or hated. I agree it was very long but if you liked it it went by fast!
Jan 10, 2006
I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan, so Peter Jackson had a lot of credibility built up coming into King Kong due to what he did with Tolkien's great stories. In anticipation of this movie, I was expecting a mix of Jurassic Park and Lord of the Rings, which is a natural expectation given Jackson's involvement and his inclusion of T-Rex's, other assorted dinosaurs, and other fantastic imagery.
If you go into this expecting a bigscreen spectacle like Jurassic Park or an incredible epic like any of the Lord of the Rings movies, you will be disappointed. He didn't make that movie.
What he did make was a very good drama about a love triangle that just happens to be between a man, a woman, and a really big gorilla.
When viewed from that perspective, instead of judging it against what it isn't, I think it's a very effective movie. Overly long by about 20 minutes or so, but effective nonetheless.
Too much time was spent on ancillary characters and special effects scenes that could have been eliminated without hurting the story and it would have kept everyone from checking their watches when they should be paying attention to the conclusion of this tragic love story. I can imagine that the editor had a tough time saying no to a guy who has been wanting to make this movie his entire life, and the extra scenes don't kill the movie, they just don't add much to it, either.
Most of all, I was disappointed in the sound of this movie. I thought a much better job could have been done with using the surrounds to convey the jungle on the island and the bustling New York cityscape. When Kong lets out a roar, I wanted to be blown back in my seat, and at least in the theater I attended, that didn't happen. The surrounds engaged only occasionally during the airplane scene, and then only briefly. This may be another example of needing to wait for the DVD for the best possible movie experience, as I would look forward to another viewing.
Temper your expectations and don't buy the super-sized soda, and you'll enjoy it!
Jan 19, 2006
Looking for more opinions?
Check out our Featured Movie Reviews for King Kong.
Journal/Blog - The Marquee - Movie Links - News and Events - Now Showing - Reader Reviews
Customize - VIP Service
|The BigScreen Cinema Guide is a service of SVJ Designs LLC. All graphics, layout, and structure of this service (unless otherwise specified) are Copyright © 1995-2016, SVJ Designs. The BigScreen Cinema Guide is a trademark of SVJ Designs. All rights reserved.|
'ACADEMY AWARDS®' and 'OSCAR®' are the registered trademarks and service marks of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.