King Kong (2005) User Reviews (2,812)

A 10-star 2-hour movie screaming to get out of a 7-star 3-hour movie

[BuddyBoy1961 · 7/10 · 17 January 2006]

Let me be the first to admit that there's nothing wrong with a long movie, nothing at all. "Titanic" was a long movie that was as exactly as long as it needed to be. "Gone with the Wind" was a really long movie that was exactly as long as it needed to be. "Dances with Wolves" was a long movie that I wish had been even longer when I saw it in the theater. But "King Kong"? Phhewww...this sucker clocks in at least 30-60 minutes longer than it needs to be. While it played, I kept inadvertently thinking to myself, "Boy, we really should be out to sea by now...they haven't reached the island yet?...man, are they EVER gonna find Ann?...jeez, when are we gonna go back to Manhattan already?..." and so on. Hand to God--I actually yawned twice during the last third of this movie. I even closed my eyes for a second before I realized, 'hey...you can't just rewind this when you wake up!'

Sure, many scenes in "King Kong" were thrilling (e.g., LOVED the T-Rex sequence) and, yes, I even teared up a little a couple of times. And I must say, Kong himself was beautifully realized--he looked and acted like a REAL gorilla (albeit a tiny bit anthropomorphized)! But I gotta tell you...I was more relieved than exhilarated when this movie ended. (If I saw one more flyover of the native village, I was gonna scream!) Peter...baby...why spend so much time developing all these extraneous secondary characters if you don't really have much closure with them by the end. For example, the ship's captain and Jimmy...once we leave Skull Island...pfffftttt...we never them again. Why all the backstory scenes about them? As with the original version, Jackson should have concentrated simply on the four main characters throughout: Kong, Ann, Driscoll and Denham. Period.

The problem is Jackson tried to make an epic out of a thriller, when these two approaches are generally exclusive to each other. The original "Kong" MOVED because it was simply a thriller and content to be so, but Jackson's remake starts and stops, and starts and stops, and starts and stops, merely frustrating the thrillseeker in us that wants to keep going every time Jackson establishes some momentum. But instead Jackson pauses to "delve" or "explore" or "elaborate" a la David Lean or something like that. One can excuse Jackson for shooting so much material for the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy--consider the rich source material . But how anyone could have taken the 100-minute original and nearly doubled it for a remake has far too much memory on his Mac. He should have saved all the extra footage (and I'm betting there's a LOT more we didn't see in the theatrical cut) for the DVD release as he did for LOTR. Mr. Jackson's first priority as a filmmaker (well, all filmmakers) is to present the most appropriate cut for THEATRICAL audiences during the film's initial exhibition in theaters. In this case, more WAS less. Much shorter movies in the past have had intermissions!

Honestly, though I certainly enjoyed "King Kong", I really have no desire to see this movie again--I just couldn't bring myself to sit through all the filler just to get to the good parts. How I wish Jackson and/or Universal would consider releasing a 2-hour DVD version. Hey, it's happened before, so what's the harm? Inside of a year there'll be 17 versions out on DVD anyway...what's one more? But having to sit through a 3-4 hour DVD version someday? I'll take a pass.

Do I recommend seeing "King Kong"? Of course. You'll probably enjoy it immensely, despite it's overlength. But if you do go, by all means lay off the Jumbo Coke until at least 90 minutes in! You'll thank me later.

Kong draws sympathy beautifully; the rest is flawed

[phoeniqs · 7/10 · 18 December 2005]

First off, let me say that I'm a huge Peter Jackson fan. I loved the whole Lord of the Rings trilogy, and consequently, I was really looking forward to seeing this film, too. Unfortunately, my admittedly high hopes were not fulfilled.

On the plus side, and most importantly, Jackson does an amazing job of portraying Kong both as a wild beast and a caring, compassionate creature. Hence, the end is particularly powerful and touching, and I truly did sympathize with Kong and feel his tragedy. In fact, I was in tears.

On the downside, however, the film has a number of big problems.

First of all, the film is too long. Jackson and his cohorts (Walsh and Phillipa Boyens) spent too much time trying to build up a multitude of characters (namely, the shipmates) who, ultimately, don't matter much, and whom you really end up not caring about, despite all the time spent on their development. Focusing instead on the handful of main characters would have allowed at least a half hour of the film to be trimmed from its needlessly bloated 3 hour length.

Secondly, the action scenes are so over-the-top that they become absurd. Painfully absurd. If you're familiar with the Lord of the Rings films, then recall Legolas' single-handed downing of the Mumakil in "Return of the King." It was a fun scene, but it stretched the bounds of plausibility, almost winking at the audience in acknowledgment of its self-indulgence. Now, imagine that scene amplified ten-fold in both length and brazenness, and that's the kind of nonsense in Kong that had me rolling my eyes, and that had the audience around me audibly groaning.

Compounding the absurdity of the action scenes was the total disregard for plausibly in scripting the actions of the scenes' main participants: the creatures. Simply put, animals just don't behave as idiotically as they do in this movie. I'm no zoologist, but I'm confident that a predator with its mouth full of a huge dinner does not bother to chase after additional prey, especially when it's a mere fraction of the size of its current meal. Moreover, a large herd of gigantic beasts doesn't stampede away from a handful of predators that are comparatively minuscule in scale. For that matter, beasts that gigantic simply don't stampede, period; they're too big. Furthermore, any animal trapped in a situation endangering its life will focus its efforts entirely on self-preservation -- that is, escaping its plight -- rather than stupidly trying to continue chasing a meaningless morsel of a meal. Don't get me wrong; the action scenes are exciting. But when the conflicts they revolve around are fundamentally flawed in concept, you find yourself scratching your head wondering, "remind me; what are they fighting about again?"

-- Spoiler Alert --

On top of those problems, there are a number of plot holes and incongruities. Why do the inhabitants of Skull Island disappear after their sacrificial offering to Kong? I mean, they just vanish! Also, what was the use of the chasm and gate protecting the inhabitants from Kong when ultimately he simply leaps the chasm and breaks through the gate? Once Kong is subdued with chloroform, how do the mere handful of people in the remaining crew get his body on board the ship? When Kong runs wild in the city, why is one street bustling with cars (that careen insanely *towards* an enraged 25-ft ape, no less), while a block or two away, the streets he "escapes" to are devoid of any activity? Isn't "the girl" cold wearing only a party dress while atop the Empire State Building in the middle of winter? I was really disappointed by the holes that easily could have been tied-up with better writing.

-- End of Spoiler --

One last complaint: as fantastic as the special effects are for Kong and the other creatures, surprisingly, many of the effects depicting the boats in the water are laughably fake-looking. Not what I expected from an operation that has proved itself top-notch in other capacities.

Overall, I liked the film for how much Kong's love story and tragedy really moved me. Unfortunately, the film's other flaws were a huge detractor to my enjoyment. I loved Jackson's epic Lord of the Rings trilogy, but in contrast, King Kong is bloated, too long, and too often insulting with its self-indulgent action, at the expense of believability.

CGI superiority

[toni-kurkimaki · 8/10 · 6 December 2005]

WETA has once again raised the bar in CGI. With the arrival of Peter Jackson's King Kong, we've come to a point where CGI can be 100% believable throughout the film. During the action-packed 3 hours you don't even stop to think "wow, that's some good CGI", but instead you recognize Kong as a personality.

I'm talking about the real star of the movie, and that should not come as a surprise. Naomi Watts is indeed an excellent Ann Darrow, Jack Black fits in Carl Denham's boots superbly, and Adrien Brody isn't half bad as Jack Driscoll. But, the star is Kong himself... and of course the man 'behind the mask', Andy Serkis. The realization of this giant gorilla is nothing short of perfect. In fact, the only CGI in the movie that's not amazing hasn't got to do with Kong.

Peter Jackson has turned this classic story into a slam-bang spectacle, with more action than many could've predicted. King Kong is also way more emotional than I personally expected. Ann Darrow's relationship with Kong is depicted in a superior way to the original movie. Despite the unbelievable stop-motion effects in the original, I always thought Kong lacked in persona. Well, that has changed. The audiences will have no trouble seeing what Kong's going through, and those eyes of his are probably the saddest sight in any movie this holiday season.

While being a loud and big popcorn-movie, King Kong succeeds in reinstating the original magic related to this tale, and is surely going to be a huge worldwide hit, that's best viewed on silver screen. I don't think many people could expect anything more from this movie than what it is : a professionally crafted, impressive piece of commercial cinema.

Truly A Masterpiece!

[BigHardcoreRed · 15 December 2005]

Let me just say that with all of the remakes that have been coming out, King Kong may have been the most deserving and the most in need of being remade. I could not think of a better director for this type of film than Peter Jackson.

King Kong stays pretty true to the original. Naomi Watts plays Fay Wray's Ann Darrow perfectly. Right down to her emotional connection with Kong, which is helped by the fact that Kong is pretty darn lovable when he is not ripping apart dinosaurs.

Adrien Brody plays a great Jack Driscoll as well. Brody is truly a gifted actor and plays a good hero.

Even Jack Black did a good job as the rebellious director Carl Denham. Usually I am annoyed by Black's performances, even though they are mostly in comedies. Surprisingly, Black kept his character serious and the movie is better for it. I though for sure he would be the one to ruin this movie for me but, again, I stand corrected. The comedy seemed to be reserved for Kong, himself, and did a wonderful job.

I can not express how much more I enjoyed this movie without the "guy in the suit" special effects. Kong was very appealing visually, as well as the other dinosaurs. I do not say this too much in reviews. In fact, I doubt I have ever said it but King Kong has turned out to be a masterpiece which will raise the bar for many years to come. 10/10

Sometimes Less is More

[Oradellian · 6/10 · 3 January 2006]

As a kid growing up in the 1950s, "King Kong" was my all-time favorite flick on the weekly show "Million Dollar Movie". My brothers and I would look forward to Kong's annual repeat performance on our tiny BW TV. We would try to memorize the dialog:

"Have you heard of. . . Kong?" (wink-wink)

For us, young men eventually to become an engineer, a scientist and a businessman, the fascination of seeing Skull Island, its creatures and dangers realized on screen, was immense when compared to the pulp fiction and comic books that we read.

================================================+++

I found Peter Jackson's remake to be turgid and Jack Black's limitations as an lead actor readily apparent. I was not pleased that some of my favorite scenes were absent from the remake:

1) The negotiations with the natives 2) The attack of the stegosaurus 3) The lake scene with the brontosaurus 4) Kong's rampage through the native village 5) so many others

Instead, the director has substituted silly and unbelievable scenes like "running with the brontosaurus's" "shoot the bugs with your Tommy gun" and "battle three Trex's while holding Naomi in your left hand".

In summary, neither the best nor the worst that I have seen this year, and certainly not on my list of all-time favorites.

Not the recognition it deserves!!!

[pugheaven · 10/10 · 10 May 2020]

Typical Peter Jackson, however gonna watch the even longer extended 3 hours 20 minutes edition in 4k, not watched in years but the picture is epic apart from it being too warm for my liking. The sound is the unusual DTS-X high def sound and already is gorgeous!

However enough of the technical borefest hahaha... this film for me is stunningly shot... some of the shots of the city are incredible. It really is a grand film and for me better than his LOTR trilogy which I may well resist soon.

However its the cinematography and sets that set this film apart from most films... integrated so well with XGI which even in 4k is holding up well... stunning is all I can say, actually old school filming with modern techniques!

Classic tale and story that recreates the original for the modern era. Even Jack Black is watchable but the stunning Naomi Watts is very very watchable hahaha.

This film doesn't get the recognition it deserves!!! As an achievement in cinema alone its a 10/10. You want blockbusters that have a story and a smidge of empathy with the characters with possibly the greatest ending of all monster films ever... this is how you do it.

Marvel and DC and all the other nonsense need to take a step back!!! This is how you combine live action, real sets and CGI into an epic tale...

Beauty and the Beast

[SonOfMoog · 7/10 · 2 January 2006]

This is a wonderful homage to a wonderful old movie. It doesn't have a lot of its own to commend it, but it really doesn't need anything. It's obvious to anyone who has seen the original that Peter Jackson loves the movie. And, that love helps to carry this remake in its slow and tedious moments. So, King Kong (2005) works for me, and I think it will work for most who see it, especially those who've seen the original.

Some cast comments: Adrien Brody was wonderful as Driscoll. There is a poignant scene in a theater where the triumphant Denham is recounting their jungle adventure. The scene is mostly a closeup of Brody, whose face speaks volumes in response to Denham's delusional account of what happened on Skull Island.

I agree with most who feel that Jack Black was miscast as Denham. He captured the sleazy con man fine, but not the pompous and pretentious auteur. Oh, he tries. He's just not believable as a filmmaker. If he was trying to recollect or channel Orson Welles, it was a pretty feeble attempt. Might have helped, I would think, if we had seen some ersatz footage of Denham from another project.

The real star of this movie is Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow. I read elsewhere that Watts and Jackson went to visit Fay Wray before she died, and Wray's opinion was that, "Ann Darrow is in good hands." I've also heard it said that the 1933 movie was Denham's story, the 1976 remake was the ape's, and Peter Jackson's homage is Ann Darrow's. I agree with these assessments completely.

Watts is radiant, luminous, too beautiful to bear as Ann. I think her best scene occurs near the end of the movie when she realizes that Kong has escaped, and that she has to meet him. Her walk down the street and out of the light to where the ape was wreaking havoc, so deliberate, so determined, so courageous, and self-assured is one of the really great scenes of 2005.

I don't agree with Roger Ebert that KK is one of the best movies of the year. And, I take exception with the significance he attaches to the bonding scene at Kong's lair. But, I like this movie, and it's clear to me that Peter Jackson loves the original. Nicely done.

Agreed, Ann: beautiful.

[GiraffeDoor · 9/10 · 31 January 2022]

Maybe I'm blinded by nostalgia but I adore this movie.

It's one of the few movies for me that is truly and action movie and not just a movie with some gun fire and general badassdom. The action sequences are captivating, electrifying and operatic in their scale and execution.

On top of this, the sense of adventure as we travel from a vivid (and probably fake) evocation of 1930s New York to the eerie island forgotten by time is realized with an artisanal attention to detail and an artist's spark and passion (though of course all movies are art).

A lot of people felt it took a while to get going. But I like local color and characters that make this feel all the more vivid. They do it with verve when so many other monster movies spend too much time on humans when they only know how to write the monsters.

The love story angle part might have been a tad much but I like Ann, I like Jack, I love to look down my nose at Carl and Hayes and the boy are a sweet addition too.

You will fear and in time come to love this endling ape who reigns as king of the forgotten world but but rules it alone. When Naomi Watts described it as a love story I dare say it might have been the most inciteful thing an actor has ever said about one of their movies that they didn't write in an interview. It's no an erotic love but in the bleak world of giant sabre toothed leach eat giant sabre toothed leach, sometimes moments of tenderness between the most unlikely pairs becomes possible.

And then we get back to New York and words do not do it justice. They kind of slapped a Christmas/Winter aesthetic in the final act because this movie released in December and I am so happy to go along with it, maybe because of that score.

Overall, one of the few remakes of a good movie that is justified since it managed to recreate for modern audiences what the original would have been at its time.

Flawed Giant

[Krustallos · 7/10 · 30 December 2005]

Don't get me wrong here, I liked this film. It was spectacular, it had considerable emotional resonance, it wasn't a travesty.

Of course in reality a 25ft silverback gorilla would collapse under its own weight, and in many ways that's what has happened to the movie.

As others have noted, it is on the long side and would have benefited from resolute scissoring throughout. Just because you have the resources to show a 10-minute dinosaur stampede doesn't mean you actually have to do it, particularly when a 30-second scene would have told the story just as well. Throughout the movie, time is stretched in order to fit in all the effects - at one point several minutes pass between someone being struck by a spear and hitting the ground.

In addition I remain unconvinced by CGI generally. OK, this probably looks better than any other CGI movie so far, but I don't think we're in any danger of confusing it with reality yet. Rather, we have a spectacular and detailed cartoon.

It's ironic that while one of the central characters here is a combination of PT Barnum-style showman and Werner-Herzog-type visionary obsessive taking his cameras into the jungle, this "King Kong" itself is as far away from Herzogian 'realism' as it's possible to get. Not only do the CGI effects themselves (with the exception of Kong's facial expressions) fail to convince, the filmmakers also have people surviving unsurvivable falls, hanging onto logs and creepers in conditions where any human being would fall, etc. I know this is a Hollywood action movie staple, but it still jolts me out of any suspension of disbelief. OK, CGI is the only way we can have dinosaurs or giant gorillas, but keeping things as real as possible otherwise would help no end with the human side of the story.

Any time a film-maker puts a film-maker into his story it's necessary to consider the relationship between the two. On the one hand we have the studio-bound CGI-nerd making a movie about a seat-of-the-pants explorer-director. On the other we have the "showman" side of Carl Denham, as Driscoll points out, destroying that very "wonder" he sets out to capture by reducing it to vulgar spectacle. You have to ask yourself if that resonance wasn't at least in Jackson's mind when he wrote the theatre scene.

On the plus side, all the themes of the original are here and amplified, from the "we are the real monsters" (with added "Heart of Darkness" reference), through strong hints of ecological parable, to the genuinely tragic love of Kong for Darrow which leads directly to his capture and eventual downfall. The sadness in his eyes throughout is something to behold - as the last of his species he is doomed in any event, ironically it is his compassion which hastens his demise.

Beauty Killed the Beast

[nycritic · 10/10 · 10 January 2006]

If the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy cemented Peter Jackson as a director of the highest order and made him the new king of the world, KING KONG seals his position as a Director and eliminates any trace of doubt that he may have been a one hit wonder.

Bringing what has to be one of the most known and greatest adventure story into a new configuration, and doing so successfully, is a tremendous gamble. Dino de Laurentiis tried to do so thirty years before, and while the film is watchable, it was considered a major disaster. An unrelated sequel, KING KONG LIVES, proved even worse. Peter Jackson, who has called KING KONG the reason he decided to get into film-making, wanted to make this film before LORD OF THE RINGS was thrown into production, but circumstances prevented this in happening, and thus his career went into high gear as we now know. Maybe it's just as best that things went this way: the sensitivity and emotional power that his saga of Middle Earth makes its way into the Modern Age and elevates this incredible action-packed adventure into the spiritual heights that its climactic sequence requests.

The argument, which resembles a massive Stephen King novel in epic proportion and in the way it introduces each of its characters, is as follows: Carl Denham (Jack Black, channeling Orson Welles) is trying to get his movie off the floor, but producers aren't quite backing him up with his latest project which is to be set in the distant Skull Island. On top of this, leading ladies are scarce, and one who would have been available (Fay, in a nod to the late Fay Wray) is working for an RKO production. Ann Darrow (a radiant, multi-faceted Naomi Watts) is a vaudeville performer who is nearly destitute: the theatre where she works has closed and she is practically stealing to eat. Darrow and Denham cross paths in the Depression era Times Square, and envisioning her as his muse, he convinces her to join his production team as his lead actress. At the same time, Denham bamboozles playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) to join his team as screenwriter, and with Captain Englehorn (Thomas Krestchmann) on helm, off they sail to Skull Island (while the entire crew believes they are heading to the more exotic location of Singapore).

As they arrive they get glimpses of the island's forbidding nature: stone faces in the style of Christmas Island's, but savage and menacing, are all over the place, and the island at first seems deserted. A little girl catches their attention and in trying to ingratiate themselves to her they are assaulted by bloodthirsty savages that all but decimate their crew and capture Darrow for the purpose of sacrificing her to (whom they believe to be) the ruler of the island, a twenty-five foot gorilla named Kong (a brilliant Andy Serkis). Not wanting to leave Ann abandoned in the island the crew comes back to rescue her and in the process discover that Kong is the least of their troubles: the island is infested with prehistoric life.

It's at this point when KING KONG bursts into non-stop action and Peter Jackson pulls out every hat trick into an hour of chase sequences and truly gory moments involving gigantic insects and man-eating worms. The only moment when the action in the forefront seems somewhat divorced from the background is the sequence where the entire crew faces a stampede of brontosauruses and raptors, but even then it is mind blowing in its sheer scope and is only the set-up to what will be the film's finest hour and the very reason moviegoers know Kong: the return to New York City and the inevitable, symbolic climax atop the Empire State Building in which the New World clashes with the Old World.

Even so, KING KONG is equally excellent in establishing its mood in four quiet moments. Who could have thought Ann could charm a beast like Kong? Here is the fulcrum of the story, not a love story but a story of kindred spirits. Ann, after fighting Kong, wins him over with her vaudeville act seen at the film's introduction. Witness his facial and body language: Kong is not a beast but an overgrown child full of wonderment and laughter at seeing her dance. Later, after a physically exhausting moment when Kong fights off three T-Rexes, both share a sunset atop a cliff, mirrored in the sunrise they witness, together, at the Empire State Building later on. But by far, the most magical moment is one in which Kong, in New York, slides through a frozen lake in Central Park, Ann in tow, both laughing. Genius at its best. Kong at his most tender.

KING KONG is a testament to movie magic that action films, even those which remake classics, can benefit from an emotional center. In reconstructing what was a one-dimensional story from its 1933 version with his evolving Ann Darrow's relationship with Kong from hostage to friend and even kindred spirit who sees the beauty within the beast, his version is the more complete, and its length brings the rewards of a fascinating film. I only imagine what he would do in re-creating the world of THE WIZARD OF OZ despite the shrieks of purists who would see such a thing as celluloid blasphemy, forgetting that remakes are necessary, and if done with an expert vision, can create transcendental beauty. And this is absolute beauty.

Spectacular and entertaining - but also very silly

[DPMay · 6/10 · 30 December 2005]

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the basic story of 'King Kong' already and certainly this remake doesn't stray too far from it. In fact I was a little concerned that a running time of three hours might be rather too long for a film whose story I already knew well. But it is a credit to its makers that it kept me entertained throughout, a far cry from, say, 'King Kong Lives' (1986) which had me bored within 10 minutes.

The 1930s setting gives the film a wonderful flavour and the recreation of the period New York is brilliant, especially as it comes across as a real city rather than a film set consisting of just a few streets. Equally impressive is the depiction of Skull Island, now a place oozing menace and danger. The sculpted rocks around it are creepy, the natives are truly scary and we see all manner of nasty creatures in the jungle, ranging from various dinosaurs to giant insects. These creatures are very convincing for the most part as is Kong himself, which is a relief given how important he is to the whole film.

Although the film asks a lot for the viewer to believe that all these monsters and a giant ape could really exist, you know all this beforehand so you are, in essence, agreeing to suspend your disbelief a little bit. The film therefore doesn't help matters at all by continually throwing up the most far-fetched ideas one after another: How can a fat man carrying a camera tripod and a guy of at least 60 outrun some giant stampeding dinosaurs over a distance of what must be at least two miles, without even getting out of breath? How can a man who, by his own admission, has never handled a gun before, successfully shoot all the insects off his buddy with a machine gun whilst both he and his buddy are constantly moving about and without a single bullet hitting his buddy? How feasible is it that Kong doesn't accidentally squeeze Ann Darrow to death when he has her gripped in his fist whilst fighting off three Tyrannosaurs and so forth? If it is so cold that the ice over the lake in Central Park is thick enough to support Kong's weight without cracking, then why isn't Ann Darrow the slightest bit chilly in that skimpy dress, especially at the top of the Empire State Building? How does she manage to hold on to a falling ladder for so long? Kong chases Driscoll's taxi across half of Manhattan. So how likely is it that as soon as he finally catches it, Ann Darrow turns up in exactly the right street? How can Driscoll see what's happening on the top of the Empire State Building when he's right outside its entrance? Wouldn't he have to be a few blocks away to get a decent view? Likewise how can Ann see all the way down to the street from the top? Then there are various cop-outs. We see the natives skillfully pole-vaulting from the island onto Denham's ship so that they can kidnap Ann, but we never see how they transport her back onto the island, as its clearly impossible for them to return by the same method. Nor do we get to see how a 25ft unconscious gorilla is loaded onto a relatively small vessel and ferried back to New York.

The tone of the film is quite comedic - the first 50 minutes or so before the island first appears is almost played out as pure farce, so its difficult to take the film seriously at all, which would appear to be how its director intended. Which is a shame given the immense amount of work that has gone into it, because I think that like the 1933 original this version could have been a lot darker and more sinister. It benefits from modern budgets and technology but ultimately offers little in terms of true storytelling innovation, the only new idea that really assists the original plot being that Ann is now more of an acrobatic showgirl and that her idea of putting on a show for Kong is what makes the big ape fall for her in the first place. But sadly so much of the logic from the 1933 version has been lost this time round.

Watch, enjoy but don't expect to be scared.

A Great Adventure

[MikeWindgren · 9/10 · 22 May 2020]

I agree, some scenes maybe are a bit too long. But what do you expect from a 3 hour movie? That it is short?

You know how the duration before you start watching.

I was thinking give it an eight or a nine. I chose nine. Because overall this still is a great adventure movie for sure.

The more recent Kong: Skull Island is a fun watch as well, but more like a fast paced action movie of it's time.

This Peter Jackson version has it's fair amount of action and still pretty good effects and tells a better and more complete story.

An Epic That's Not Supposed to Be?

[sth128 · 7/10 · 17 February 2006]

Clocking in at just over 187 minutes, it seem Peter Jackson can't make a movie that is less than 3 hours long. Of course, this is no Lord of the Rings and whatever else you might have heard, it's a movie about a giant ape.

The story starts slowly and picks up half way through, and when it does it is utterly spectacular. The action sequences are absolutely amazing and Jackson even managed to make all of it dramatic.

Of course, coming off a long trilogy like LOTR, Peter Jackson can't help but be dramatic but I just wish he would shift some of that monkey business off the ape and focus at least a bit more attention on the cannon fodder dying around the main characters.

It's good, but you probably need a Kong-sized bladder to sit though all of it.

I just could not suspend that much disbelief!

[Keatonics · 5/10 · 18 December 2005]

I agree with most of you that the effects were spectacular, but judging a film on this single criterion makes one a shallow viewer. You must judge the story on its completeness, the characters must be judged for their depth and believability (and yes, I found Kong to be a believable character, but found most of the others to be very shallow, indeed). The cinematography was interesting but typical of modern films, the costumes not correct for the period, same with the hairstyles. The New York exteriors were contrived, and some obviously shot on the Universal back lot.

As I sit and think hard about the film I am having trouble finding anything very positive to say about it, except the special effects. The Kong character was spectacular, but the rest of the effects were no better than Jurassic Park's effects, especially given the advancements in CG technology over the last 12 years.

That said, I could have overlooked any shortcoming if one major flaw did not exist.

A film must be believable on certain levels, in order to get me to suspend my disbelief on other levels. There must be enough believable elements for me to see through the obviously unbelievable ones. This film failed in a major way in inevitability, and I'm not referring to the Kong character.

Some examples: How did the main characters constantly elude death at every turn, when it was clearly obvious that they should have died many times over? How did seven men get Kong into the boat? How did they keep him subdued on the voyage, and indeed right up through the curtain going up in the theater? Why weren't Ann's hands ripped off (or at least her wrists broken) when Kong ripped her from her rope bindings when he first took her? That must have hurt! Why weren't Ann's feet cut to shreds as she ran through the jungle? Why didn't Ann get dirty and her dress rip to shreds during her ordeal in the jungle? Why did her hair stay nice and neat and her dress stay clean and white? How did she end up with only a minor facial scratch after being thrown around the jungle over and over? Why didn't Ann's skull get bashed in, or her brain jarred loose as Kong swung her violently during her capture and the scenes with the T-Rex.

How could Carl, and other men survive a fall from such a great height when Kong knocked them off the log? Why weren't they crushed to death as the log came tumbling down on top of them? Why didn't Jack and Carl and the others get absolutely crushed to death by the dinosaurs as the beasts overtook them running through the jungle? Why didn't they get crushed to death as 10 or 12 dinosaurs all fell down all at once on top of them? Why wasn't everyone dead by this point in the film? Why wasn't Jack hit by a single bullet fired by Jimmy, even though every spider swarming over Jack's body was blown to smithereens, as untrained Jimmy fired blindly with his eyes shut? Why didn't the bats kill Jack and Ann, even as Kong was swarmed and mauled by them? Why didn't Jack get the least bit hurt when Kong flipped the taxi he was driving 20 feet into the air, doing a 360 and crushing the vehicle? Why didn't Ann freeze her @ss off when she met Kong in skimpy attire in the middle of winter in NYC? Why didn't Ann freeze when she and Kong were ice skating? Where did all the people go during the Central Park scene? Why weren't they running around screaming, trying to save their lives? Where did they all disappear to? Why would anyone in his or her right mind climb to the top of the Empire State Building, even for love (I was squeamish even in the comfort of my theater seat)? Why would any woman kiss Adrien Brody on top of the Empire State Building after having had such a great relationship with a real man, King Kong? This represents only a few of the unbelievable elements.

At every turn in this film the unbelievable overwhelmed the believable. It would have been very easy to not go so far over the top, tone back just a little, so the suspension of disbelief could have been as natural in this remake as it was in the original.

The sunrise and sunset scenes were quite nice. At least I found something good to say.

Great Effects, OK acting, Too long to see twice

[fstall303303 · 7/10 · 13 June 2006]

Overall i will come out and say I enjoyed the one hour of introduction and 2 hours of effects i saw from Jackson's King Kong. Yes of course the movie had amazing jaw dropping effects and a very strong script. Yet, I must admit something wasn't their for me. Maybe it was the fact there were unnecessary and pointless story lines and scenes. Such as the African American on the boat being the father figure for the boy. I did not see the relevance of that at all. And how many people did we see on the boat on the way their at any given time yet to me it seemed like at least 100 people died on the island. And Jack Black's quote at the end of the movie " Beauty killed the Beast" and walks away. I still don't like that being the final words of the film. Other than that, Naomi Watts was stunning and amazing in her role. Adrian Brody gave a stable performances, Jack Black gave a mildly convincing job. But the movie was still entertaining for me especially on my big screen with surround sound. Yet I do not think i will be adding it to my collection because i don't see myself watching it through its three hours any time soon

A roaring success

[skymovies · 10/10 · 9 December 2005]

Uh-oh, 45 minutes in and no sight of the gorilla. It's 1933, and to make his movie masterpiece, producer Carl (devious) has lured actress Ann (fetching) and screenwriter Jack (heroic) onto a ship bound for exotic climes. The crew - grizzled captain, philosophical first mate, grubby cook, callow cabin boy - reckon that Carl is leading them into trouble. And so he is.

So far, so Titanic. But fear not, for as soon as the boat slams into the mythical Skull Island, all hell breaks loose. First, hostile natives snatch Ann because she'd make the perfect sacrifice for their simian god. Enter the big fella... he's 25 feet of ladykilling silverback, and boy does he take a shine to Ann. Then it's a hair-raising, bone-jarring race through the uncharted jungle for both Kong - who's desperate to hang on to his blonde prize - and the rescuers, led by Jack.

Never mind Never Land, this is Never-Go-There Land. It makes Jurassic Park look like Wimbledon Common. Apes aside, the place is swarming with angry and enormous beasts causing snapping, flapping, stomping, chomping, falling, squalling, creepy-crawly carnage. But amidst it all Carl (clearly mad) has a great idea. Why not capture Kong and take him back…?

Quite simply, this is the most spectacular, exhilarating and marvellously sustained hour of action adventure I've ever seen... But is there anything left for the final act? Hell, yes.

One wrecked theatre and a little mayhem on Broadway leads us up the Empire State building for the dizzying, chest-beating climax. It won't do anyone with a fear of heights any favours whatsoever - and everyone else's fingernails will be burrowing through their chair arms as they will Kong to hang on.

Technically, the production is spectacular on every level, from the wilds of Skull Island to the bustle of 30s' Manhattan. But Jackson's handling of the bond between Kong and Ann is equally impressive. It's a key element, and what could have been laughable is actually something that even cynics could buy into. That's because as much care has gone into Kong's character as his presence. His expressions gel wonderfully with Naomi Watts' committed performance - and she's so much more than just a swooning damsel-in-distress. Fay Wray was a game gal and all, but she never had a giant centipede crawl in her mouth.

So what if Jack Black isn't quite Machiavellian enough to convince in his role and that the first hour is slightly draggy and prone to daft speechifying? One bit of miscasting and a deliberate beginning are but tiny scars on what is a truly magnificent creature.

I'm still dumbstruck. Kong's awesome. Kong rules. Bravo, Peter Jackson, bravo.

Overambitous

[spieck1 · 6/10 · 15 December 2005]

Note: If you know the basic story of King Kong, this review does not contain spoilers. If you know nothing about it you will find some basic story elements.

This movie made me angry. Not because it's bad but because it has such spectacular action, beautiful shots and wonderful moments and still fails. This could have been great but Peter Jackson was too ambitious and wanted to make an epic emotional love story and a spectacular action adventure at the same time, not realizing that he didn't have Lord of the rings size material at hand but a pretty simple b-movie story.

If you cut out 45 minutes (especially in the first half) you can tune this into a fantastic Jurassic Park 4 (or Jurassic Park 2 for that matter as we now see that JP2 stole its story from Kong). It would be a first class action ride with stunning never-seen-before leave-you-breathless action sequences.

Sadly that was not enough for Jackson and that's where he fails. Though there are emotional moments that work, over all the characters are b-movie flat. There are stories of sidekicks that are pretentious and don't help the movie. There are at least forty close ups on Naomi Watts who is really beautiful but after about the 20th close up I can even tire from her beauty. The island natives are one-dimensional creatures. The acting is so-so. And after all, if Jackson had cared for a character driven beauty-and-the beast love story he should have toned down the action.

Whats left? Some of the best action sequences in movie history and a CGI Kong that really comes alive in a simple story that does not survive being handled as an epic.

Still holds up!

[atjudkins · 10/10 · 7 March 2022]

I remember watching this at around 8 years old and not getting past the hour and 20 mark because I got so scared. As an adult, who's since attended film school, I can watch it in it's entirety and be completely blown away. It's a surprisingly emotional movie, and the CGI still holds up 17 years later, which lends itself to incredible set pieces and an emotional connection with Kong. It really is a tragic movie, and on that I think could be released today and no one would bat an eye at the special effects. They're that good.

Great Effects / Predictabley Long Peter Jackson Movie

[danieljamesb · 7/10 · 9 April 2006]

I really enjoyed this movie. Everyone from Naomi Watts to Jack Black did a great job in this film. Kong looked amazing, and all the special effects on were amazing as well. Although I expected this to be a wild, action filled, Hollywood graphics movie, it did end up having great development / chemistry of the less hairy actors.

Overall this movie is a must see, I mean, its King Kong but here are some of the draw backs...

-Movie is predictable, obviously -Inconsistent Time frame (one thing takes 1 hour, equal event takes 10 Seconds) -Small Plot Holes

but my biggest pet peeve is that Peter Jackson makes these movies so darn long that I will never watch it ever again. To watch this movie again you must put aside an additional 3 Hours for a movie I have already seen.

So I say watch it but don't buy it. How many 3 hour sessions do you have for Kong?

The (almost) definitive Kong experience

[johnregan1999 · 9/10 · 15 August 2022]

Peter Jackson's take on the "King Kong" tale is arguably the most epic that's ever been put to screen. Unlike most remakes; this is the rare example where I'd say it's on par with (and arguably surpasses) the original. Jackson achieves this through not only paying loving homage to the source material, but expanding upon the characters and storyline to make the stakes higher and make the plot more compelling.

The visual effects are genuinely stunning. Apart from a single scene (dinosaur chase scene), the effects have aged extremely well, and look better and more realistic than most modern day CGI work. The character of Kong is brought to life in such a unique way, with his personality developed beyond simply a big brute destroying everything he touches. This is a sympathetic Kong, which only makes the final scenes harder to watch.

Like Kong, the human characters also get a significant upgrade from the original version. Jack Black is a particular stand-out, who gives a career best performance in my opinion. Naomi Watts is perfect as Ann, while Adrian Brody and Kyle Chandler are brilliant as always. That's not even mentioning Jamie Bell and Andy Serkis. My god this movie has it all.

Essentially, Peter Jackson's "King Kong" is more of everything. More characters. More action. More content. While more is not necessarily better, and the run time is astonishing at over 3 hours (for a monster movie no less!), Jackson produced a true blockbuster epic that I can't help but love.

The Apeman Cometh

[keith-farman-1 · 7/10 · 21 December 2005]

The eyes have it. Of all the multi-million $ visual illusions created for King Kong, the most critical to the film are the prehistoric, 25 foot Gorilla's eyes. However breathtaking the CGI generated action sequences, and they are superbly filmed and edited - it is the real sense of a primitive creature forming a meaningful attachment to a single human being around which this frankly preposterous story pivots. The importance of the eyes as a means of conveying 'innerness', thought, personal identity is a cliché of cinema acting. Quite how the eyes, even seen through the camera lens, communicate this sense of 'another' is a phenomenon as subtle as it is genuinely profound.

The Kong of the original 1933 movie and this faithful remake is essentially anthropomorphised, especially in the thrilling, CGI choreographed fight scenes with other pre-historic animals. The haymaker swings and punches are very exciting but hardly I would have thought gorrilla-like. This isn't a nerdy complaint: the dramatic effect of the breathless chases and titanic battles is all that matters - and it works. But the achievement of a sense of individuality for Kong is conveyed with a subtlety that really puts the more crash bang wallop of CGI action in the shade. Without a sense of Kong as a kind of individual, protecting the human to whom he has formed a unique attachment - there is no movie. With all these acutely observed anthropomorphised behavioural signals in place, we then 'read' genuine emotion, even pathos, into those great eyes. It is worth noting that the close-up in movies places us within the most private, intimate space of a character, gorilla or not, only achieved in real life in very special conditions of personal intimacy. Part of the unique power of the eyes in movies perhaps. And the basis of its inescapably voyeuristic quality.

Peter Jackson is a frustrating movie-maker. He can brilliantly set up a mis en scène of 1930's New York in 5 minutes of economical editing and evocative cinematography, then drag out getting to Skull Island and the first appearance of Kong for another 40 minutes or so. Learning from Spielberg in Jaws, Jackson builds up tension before Kong appears, its just that the intervening 40 minutes is pretty dull and uninspired. However, while the unbearable, cumulative tension of Spielberg's movie virtually evaporates as soon as we see the clunky metal reality of the phoney shark, Jackson's Kong stands up to every scrutiny and never disappoints. But Jackson's movie-making sprawls across the screen, in this case taking 187 minutes to cover essentially the same story, in a sense the same film given its faithfulness to the original, which came in at 104.

Jackson's editing willpower seems to desert him with CGI footage. Instead of being an immensely powerful means to achieve a dramatic effect, it simply becomes an end in itself. This tendency began with the LOR trilogy and persists here. At least KK only has one ending. As Jackson piles impossible thrill upon impossible thrill in the second hour of the movie, one at times begins to suffer from astonishment fatigue. So many creatures, so many battles, so many shocks your brain jams with overload. And this lack of pacing makes an already pretty average script clunk even more than it should. LOR and KK despite their amazing and highly entertaining strengths, share the same inherent weakness - a lack of cadence. Their narrative seems to have only two speeds - slow or flat out. Only late on with the scenes with Naomi Watts sharing the beauty of a sunset with a 'contemplative' Kong does the movie achieve a kind of stillness that allows the illusion of an impossible relationship to breathe a little credible life.

Casting is patchy. Naomi Watts is good in an impossible part and deserves an Oscar for the longest unbroken sequence of reaction shots in movie history. Jack Black just can't seem to make off-the-wall entrepreneur-come-filmmaker Carl Denham quite fit and despite a good crack at writer Jack Driscoll, Adrien Brody looks miscast. The rest do a good job with pretty cardboardy characters to work with including a confident Jamie Bell in an add-in part. But the heart and soul of the movie of course is Kong and the credibility Watts just about manages to convey of an affection and empathy between impossibly disparate species. (I'd leave any psychoanalytic concepts in the car for this one by the way). The third star of course is CGI. A star who many Directors are beginning to discover, is becoming far too big for his boots, prohibitively expensive and starting to suffer from the law of diminishing returns.

The end result is an at times breathlessly exciting movie whose subtext morality tale plays no better nor worse than the original - which is pretty marginally. And Kong reigns absolutely supreme as the most realistic cinematically generated creature in movies so far. In his faithfulness to the original it is a pity I think that Jackson leaves himself open to the same criticism levelled against the first film's portrayal of the native people of Skull Island. Why oh why are aboriginal people always portrayed in such a crass, ignorant, farcically stereotypical way? Leering, filthy, witless, pitiless 'savages' just there as fear fodder. It may seem a bit precious to refer to this in a review of an old-fashioned adventure yarn movie and I'm not talking from political correctness, but this story could have been enhanced not harmed, by a more intelligent portrayal and use of this aspect of the story.

Well worth a visit. But be warned - the 12A certificate is yet again misleading. I would think twice about accompanying any child under 12 to this at times graphically scary movie. Like the latest Harry Potter, KK demonstrates that the 12A certification needs serious re-thinking as it is misleading parents into taking too many too young kids to too many too scary movies.

Wow

[EvilAdam · 9/10 · 5 December 2005]

This film is simply amazing. The best remake I have ever seen, expect nothing but aces in the drama and action department in this film. Peter Jackson manages to helm one hell of a movie, and what is destined to be 2005's top film.

Never have I seen a CG Character garner so much emotion. If you thought the first film is heartbreaking, this one down right makes it tough to not shed at least a tear by the end of the film.

By the way, once the action starts in this film, it NEVER let's up. A beautiful yet sad film, I can't wait to see it again.

Those who are afraid that this film might do anything to take away from the original, do not worry. The time and setting of this film really keeps the original's spirit intact, while carving some fantastical new ground of it's own. Though some of the actual scenery here and there may look a bit fake, you will never ever think that about the main ape himself.

The 1933 King Kong is still the undefeated Eighth Wonder of the World!

[roypwebber · 7/10 · 19 December 2005]

I saw King Kong at midnight Tuesday December 13 (early 14th) at a local premier. I was very hopeful, in a guarded way, that it would be nearly as good as the original 1933 film. It didn't turn out that way at all in my opinion. So here are my thoughts / comments (mainly objections) to the Peter Jackson film...

First, the movie is overlong by way of adding many unnecessary elements to pad it out to its 3-hour running length. The montage of Depression-era New York may set the tone for people who weren't around in the 1930s, but the bleakness could have been covered along with the main storyline of the film. This is easiest to point out but there are many other examples. As for the casting, I thought it mediocre at best. Jack Black's squinting, leering Carl Denham is nothing like the Robert Armstrong portrayal, coming off pretty much as a cheat and a scoundrel; the 1933 character might cut corners but would never seem to stoop to the level seen here. Adrien Brody as the playwright Jack Driscoll is too effeminate in the role and seems out of character as the "brave sort" wanting to save Ann Darrow most out of all the crew. Naomi Watts is very good as Ann Darrow, as is the black first mate (Evan Parke) on the Venture. Engelhorn (Thomas Kretschmann) seems too dark and brooding a character, nothing like the kindly though stalwart captain of the original film. Ironically, his demeanor is perfectly in line with the greasy, grimy incarnation of the tramp steamer which he is in charge of, another example of the "grungy" motif this version heartily embraces. The rest of the cast makes little impression though the young lad Jimmy (Jamie Bell) under the wing of the first mate is acceptable. Personally, I thought the depiction of the natives as paleolithic, bloodthirsty mud savages a very unfortunate departure in characterization. I would want Kong to stomp all these ugly natives into oblivion if you ask me!!!

Skull Island and the jungle settings are dissimilar though they do work. But many of the components of this remote land mass are not as effectual as they were in 1933. There is a complete absence of a Dore-esquire feel in the landscape. and the native wall looks more like a leftover set from Return of the King, with the streams of burning material pouring from along the parapet. Kong's roost over the river and ocean isn't as visually impressive either. Of course, the dinosaurs and other creatures are extremely conspicuous and technically well-executed but unfortunately there is a gross amount of "overkill" compared to the 1933 feature. Instead of one T. rex there are now three, instead of one brontosaurus there is a herd of sauropods, instead of a pteranodon there is a flock of flapping bat creatures, and instead of a few critters in the spider pit there are now hoards of insect-like monstrosities. Besides the multiplication of animal life here, the staging of these dinosaur sequences is so over-the-top as to border on ridiculous. How do so many survive while running between the stomping feet of those long-necked saurians, and the tyrannosaurs hanging and swinging on the vines is stretching belief to an extreme. One thing that was sorely lacking was an introductory dinosaur sequence as seen in 1933, when the stegosaurus ambles into view and charges, setting the prehistoric and forbidding "feel" of the island. I do like the look and the wonderful expressions of Kong, accepting that the titular ape would have to be modernized and look more than an actual gorilla than before. But it still could have been tweaked slightly to be a little more upright and anthropomorphic to make it truly a "creature of fantasy" instead of a something you could see at a zoo.

After capturing Kong and ending up in New York, the theater sequence was strange in that it recapitulates the native ceremony (with Max Steiner's pulsating score) of over 70 years ago but it is done in an overly gratuitous manner, even accepting that it pays homage to the original. Kong's escape and rampage is a fast-moving affair until he finds Ann (or she finds him rather). From there things really go south in my view. First is the completely pointless episode on the ice pond in Central Park (?) where Kong and Ann frolic on the slippery surface. Then after he climbs the Empire State Building and the bi-planes appear, Ann Darrow not only has the wits and nerve to scamper to the uppermost platform atop the spire, but she actually stands and tries to wave off the bi-planes!!!! This finale is staged so completely wrong as a "remake" I am frankly at a loss for words! Sure, Ann should shed a tear at the demise of Kong, but the whole scenario is so overwrought it comes off (sadly) very clichéd and formula. I know many people will like King Kong, and overall it isn't a "bad" movie per se but I think Peter Jackson sold out to the idea of kowtowing to the (often questionable) tastes of a modern audience and making mega profits. From a purist point-of-view, I find this remake, though better than the dreadful 1976 affair, coming up short of the mark in many ways. It is to me much like the 1998 Mighty Joe Young compared to the 1949 picture---a remake really only in name.

I know my perspective is critical to an extreme but I think it is warranted in light of who made this film and the hype about how reasonably "faithful" it was supposed to be to the beloved classic...

Too much, too long, too bad

[Shut_Up_Irwin · 3/10 · 18 December 2005]

With the technology available for special effects, this could have been a great movie. Unfortunately, it wasn't. Sadly, this movie just proves the point that good effects do not a good movie make.

What happened here is that a film with enough plot to last for the time of the original was stretched out to try fill 3 hours of screen time, and the result is disastrous. In addition, it's pretty clear that CGI nerds and video game designers had way too much input into this atrocity.

It can all be summarized with a top 10 list of the worst scenes/mistakes of the movie:

10. The time wasting, overly long, irrelevant plot line surrounding Ann Darrow, the old man, and the theater getting closed down. Not pertinent to the story.

9. The CGI nerd focus on the spinning airplane wheels on the fighter planes. Someone said "Isn't this the coolest thing you've ever seen?". It only lasted a few seconds, but it was there only because some GIGANTIC nerd wanted it in. Guess what? It's NOT cool.

8. The plot line surrounding Jimmy and Mr. Hayes. Unnecessary, irrelevant, and ultimately unresolved. Why was Hayes protective of Jimmy? Did Jimmy go on to make something of himself? We never know. Why did anyone have to know he read "Heart of Darkness" or any of the other nonsense that was discussed between them? Total waste of time, stalls the story.

7. Kong violently shaking Ann around after he gets to his home turf, and her suffering no ill effects. She'd be not only injured, but dead. Kong was supposed to be gentle with Ann, duh. Totally missed the point.

6. The time wasting, overly long, irritating scenes where Kong repeatedly roars for no good reason. CGI nerds/effects people are responsible, I'm certain. They obviously took over the whole movie. Probable discussion: "Isn't the roar the coolest thing you've ever seen/heard? Let's use it 47 times!"

5. The completely ludicrous scene where Kong smashes the stolen taxi but Driscoll (inside) isn't even scratched. Guess what? That's right, he'd be dead. Come on, you can at least TRY to make this thing believable.

4. The completely awful scene where Kong fights 3 T-Rexes while holding Anne in his hand. For the love of God, she'd be killed instantly. At least the original had the sense to have him put her down to fight the tyrannosaurus, a key element ignored in the remake, here and elsewhere in the movie. They also miss the point about the planes holding back when Kong is holding Ann, see above. Point missed.

And the top 3…

3. The incredibly preposterous and insulting scene where Jimmy shoots all the CGI nerd created insects off of Driscoll. Shuts his eyes while firing, and hits all the bugs. It wasn't just reminiscent of Jar-Jar Binks in the big battle with the gun stuck on his tail, it WAS Jar-Jar Binks in the big battle with the gun stuck on his tail. Totally unacceptable.

2. The even more preposterous and more insulting and asinine Brontosaurus stampede scene. This one almost takes the cake for worst scene in movie history, if not for the next one. Beyond ridiculous, totally unbelievable, video-game quality. Graphics cheesy and unrealistic. CGI nerds were probably slapping high fives seeing how many asinine near-miss, "Raptor almost gets the character before being stomped by the brontosaurus", Tom and Jerry scenes they could create. Asinine beyond belief.

1. The horrible, horrible ridiculous scene where Kong and Ann et all are falling through the vines, getting caught repeatedly by new vines swinging out, not getting injured, falling again, caught by another swinging vine, not getting injured, etc. Vines pendulum-like swinging with the monster almost gobbling Ann up, only to be just out of reach, repeatedly. This didn't belong in "King Kong", it belonged in "Donkey Kong Jr.".

If you removed all this irrelevant nonsense, what would remain might not have been that bad. It would probably be quite good, in fact. Sadly, it was left in. It's hard to imagine how insufferable a DVD "Director's Cut" could be.

On the positive side, Naomi Watts was excellent, as was Jack Black. The acting in general was a positive, no real complaints there. And the animation of Kong himself was excellent. Very well done.

Sadly though, very little of the movie involved acting. It was all about making it a big video game and putting in all the effects. The effects are not themselves the movie, they are there to support the movie!

To summarize, there were a lot of good pieces, but there were also a lot of bad ones. Ultimately too many were used, and a lot of them did not belong.

Huge Disappointment ... too dumb for words

[StarkTech · 16 December 2005]

HUGE SPOILERS...................................................

One hour of exposition to start the film doesn't work, especially after the movie degenerates in to asinine, over-the-top CGI action. This movie really never knew what it wanted to be. Jack Black played his role as cheesy as possible and that hurt the film at every turn. Besides Ann, none of the characters were fleshed out even with the long introductions. I was truly disappointed in the way the story was told.

Still, you don't go to a monster flick for the plot, even the "king" of all monster flicks. They spent hundreds of millions on a CG budget and wasted almost every penny. Despite the big budget, does it get any worse or any more "greenscreen" then that preposterous and downright awful Brontosaurus stampede? Why the need for the gross-out giant bug valley scene? Does Kong get attacked by giant bats at his home every night? Those same bats would rather attack a giant ape then eat the two humans standing right there? That whole escape scene was beyond bad. Did I really see our two heroes ride a giant bat like a glider down to the river below? Oy. This went even beyond James Bond type implausible stupidity. I'm all for the suspension of disbelief, especially when dealing with 30 foot tall apes, but some of this stuff was too stupid to believe. Worse, most of these antics didn't register as real to the minds eye…poor use of modern CGI if you ask me. Good construction and technology but poorly used by Peter Jackson. Plot holes were everywhere. Why did grabbing a taxi (a 1930s mule to boot) and getting Kong to follow help anything? The destruction was still wide spread. It's a good thing that the chase ended on the street where the Ann character was waiting, beautifully back lit. It obviously wasn't very cold in winter back in 1930s New York because there was hardly a breeze or a chill on the very top of the Empire State building. I could go on but why bother? Why do they think we'd care about this giant ape who brutally murders multiple humans during the course of the film? Any critics that say this has emotional resonance are just fooling themselves. Kong fires the black guy (Jimmy's mentor) off a cliff, throws multiple people off a log bridge and then bites a guy in two right before he gets KO'd and we cut to Ann crying? Huh? Are we suppose to feel sorry for Kong? I'd have felt sorry for me as a movie ticket buyer if it hadn't been for the Tyrannosaurus Rex vs Kong stuff, however. Those 15 minutes or so almost saved the movie for me. Almost.