King Kong (2005) User Reviews

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

PROS: Good mix of genres. A touching Romance. Great CGI Action. Funny in parts. CONS: Too long. An uneven pace - may try people's patience.

[sir-titus · 7/10 · 29 December 2005]

"It was beauty that killed the beast." - Carl Denham, King Kong

Hollywood apparently is in a season of unconventional love stories. At a time that Brokeback Mountain is wowing critics, and winning awards at every conceivable award ceremony, King Kong brings man and beast together. Flush from the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson, was given a loose leash and an almost unlimited budget, to film a story he had always dreamed of retelling. The result - one of the most expensive films to date. Though visually breathtaking, Jackson may be unable to thrust this 3-hour long beast of a movie down every cine-goer's throat. At over 3 hours (187 minutes to be exact), it's an hour too long. But if you have the patience, it's a roller-coaster ride through action, comedy, romance, drama and what may you have.

Patience pays and how. If you are one of those guys, who on finding a movie's pace too slow for their comfort, just walk out after an hour, then this movie is not for you. In fact, quite a few of the viewers may squirm in their seats as the first hour progresses, but the next couple of hours should make up for it. Almost every guy in the theater is there to see King Kong, and if he doesn't make an appearance even an hour into the movie, I don't blame them if they start feeling cheated.

Set in the Great Depression of 1933, the movie is set into motion with an out-of-work Vaudeville actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), looking for a way to eke out a decent living. Along comes obsessed film-maker Carl Denham (Jack Black), who's in possession of a map to a mysterious island of legend, where he's desperate to film his movie. With none of the top actresses of the time in a mood to undertake the risky voyage, Carl convinces Ann to be his female lead. Also with just 15 pages of a script available, Carl tricks scriptwriter Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) to join them on board the S.S. Venture. And then they set sail on an adventure of a lifetime.

The movie stays true to the 1933 original, and traces the story in 3 parts - the sea voyage, their stay on Skull Island and their return to New York. It's the first of these three parts, where Jackson seems to spend more time than anybody in the audience would like him to. But you can forgive him once you are on the island. The second hour is great for people who like loads of action - they get more than enough of it. The romantic crowd in the theater, should be satisfied by the last hour of the movie which turns quite mushy.

Naomi Watts puts in a commendable performance, as does Oscar winner Adrien Brody (The Pianist). It's also a treat to watch Jack Black, who plays film-maker Carl Denham. But the movie belongs to none of these.

The real hero is Kong himself. King Kong - the character - turns out as Bollywood-esqe as a Hollywood Hero can get. He's madly in love with his heroine. He will protect her at the risk of hurting himself. He is quite jealous of the other guy in her life. And best of all, he can take on 3 baddies (in this case, T-Rexes), all in one go. Also, better not give a miss to King Kong's dance on ice with his lady love. This is one of the few CGI characters for which one can really feel (his eyes just say it all), and not just appreciate or laugh at.

King Kong should see a good opening, but I see the length and pace of the movie hurting it's box-office run. Also, this movie is neither for die-hard action fans, nor for the mushy romantic types. This movie will go down well with people who appreciate movies, irrespective of the genre, because I found it really difficult to pigeonhole this movie. Leave it to you to label it.

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.

Jackson's Soulful, Spunky, Spectacular Labor of Love

[dtb · 10/10 · 6 December 2005]

I was one of the lucky winners of the Kong is King.net World Premiere Ticket contest, so my husband and I had the pleasure of seeing KING KONG in Times Square's Loews E-Walk Theatre. I knew I'd like it the minute I saw the Art Deco opening credits, very reminiscent of RKO's style. The movie only got better from there, carrying us moviegoers on a roller-coaster ride of adventure, romance, and eye-popping special effects. What raises Jackson's take on KING KONG above other rock'em-sock'em action blockbusters is that it's so clearly a labor of love in every sense of the term, a spectacle with soul and spunk. It's not every rollicking adventure film that begins with scenes of life in 1933 New York City, when the Great Depression was at its worst. No wonder plucky but vulnerable actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts is at her most beautiful and winsome as a more proactive version of Fay Wray's star-making role) is willing to take a chance with fast-talking movie producer/director Carl Denham (Jack Black, a rascally delight) on his latest project, involving leaving for the South Seas that very night.

The characters are no mere genre archetypes; before their adventure begins, Jackson and his talented cast let us get to know and care about every one of them. When crewmen from the S.S. Venture get injured or killed by Skull Island's various fearsome natives and beasts, we mourn them. When Ann and playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody combines strength and sensitivity wonderfully as this unlikely hero. He gets my vote for Movie Mensch of the Year!) connect on screen, we're moved and rooting for them to get together, especially after they share one of this year's best screen kisses. Even the calculating Denham wins us over with his sheer force of will. A real Orson Welles type, the guy just loves making movies -- and money -- so much he'll go to insane lengths to make his project a reality, whether it involves outrunning his creditors, shanghaiing Driscoll on the Venture, or tricking his cast and crew onto uncharted Skull Island.

Most importantly, King Kong himself captivates us, thanks to a combination of WETA's amazing special effects and the range of emotion provided by a motion-captured Andy Serkis. If only one cast member gets an Oscar nomination, I say give it to Serkis for his wonderful performances as both Kong and Lumpy the cook! :-) Kong has never been just another scary big ape in any of the previous film versions of his story, but Jackson and Serkis make him particularly engaging, not just because he looks so convincingly weatherbeaten, but he moves like an ape (on all fours, thank you) and has the facial expressions of a human. As a result, we can see how Kong's terrifying side is influenced by his tender side. Yes, I said "tender." How else can you describe his protectiveness towards Ann on Skull Island after she wins him over by performing her lively vaudeville act? When Kong does go nutzoid, it's because either he or Ann are being threatened, whether by people, planes, or Skull Island's jaw-dropping, scream-inducing array of monsters and aborigine tribespeople. Jackson & Company give the big guy plenty of dizzying set pieces to show his stuff, involving everything from dinosaurs, toothy insects as long as your arm, and speeding taxicabs in New York City traffic (the scene where Brody did his own stunt driving; all those years of drag-racing on the streets of Woodhaven, Queens really paid off! :-), to say nothing of the dazzling Empire State Building climax. Moreover, Andrew Lesnie's cinematography is as gorgeous as it is kinetic; Adrien Brody should make sure Lesnie photographs every film he's in from now on, because he's never looked so handsome as he does here! :-) KING KONG is over 3 hours long, yet I never once thought to look at my watch. It's 3+ hours and the price of admission well-spent.

A Monumental Success of a Movie

[pyrocitor · 10/10 · 18 December 2005]

If it had been announced that a remake of the classic "King Kong" was being made without the name Peter Jackson attached to it, there is no doubt audiences would have been outraged. But after the enormous success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, it would seem that the general public has learned to trust director Peter Jackson. After watching his remake of King Kong, I would have to say that their trust was well placed.

Jackson now firmly cements his name as a master filmmaker, the kind that all aspiring directors want to be. The attention he pays to the most minute details, the sheer class he shows in terms of production and scale, the amount of skill he has in manipulating our fragile emotions... the man is clearly one of the most talented directors in film history. And Jackson certainly brings his considerable skill and flair to show here in 'Kong'. While a different director likely would have sped up the story to the crew's arrival on Skull Island, Jackson takes his time with a nice, leisurely build up to their arrival, giving us lots of time to really get to know these characters, and also providing time for a slow and genuine romance building between the characters of Anne and Jack. This romance does lead to the very few and seldom weaknesses of the film... the romance scenes can seem a bit cheesy and contrived at times. But when that's literally the only complain I can make, it's a pretty damn good sign for the movie!

The visual effects are an essential part of the movie, and they really needed to be done well here to properly sell the idea - safe to say that they were still good enough to surpass my already unrealistically high expectations! Safe to say, even in today's computer saturated film industry the special effects in King Kong will still succeed in blowing you away. And Jackson seems to have an almost uncanny skill in manipulating his audience's emotions - you will cheer, you will laugh, you will cry, you will really be on the edge of your seat and you will be truly and thoroughly disgusted in at least one part of the movie - watch out for a cave full of giant insects on Skull Island. It seemed only fair to post a warning considering how profoundly well done it is...

The cast is pitch perfect, right down to the most minuscule parts. (the natives on Skull Island are even more terrifying than any orcs or evil creatures in LOTR) Naomi Watts gives a heartwarming and wonderful performance as the innocent Ann Darrow, the "beauty who killed the beast". And indeed, performance aside, Watts hasn't looked this beautiful for quite a while! While everyone had their doubts about Jack Black's casting a while back, he proves to be just what his character needed to be truly believable. Black harnesses his trademark manic energy, and instead of playing it for laughs, expels it through Carl Denham's passion for the film industry, and his lust for providing a show for his audiences - sometimes at the cost of his morals. I must admit, I have never been a fan of Adrien Brody, but even he managed to win my sympathies, and proves surprisingly convincing as heroic screenwriter Jack Driscoll. And then there's Andy Serkis... the man is so underrated, since his best performances have been overshadowed by masks of admittably impressive CGI, but result in him losing credit he so desperately deserves. Serkis, while utterly convincing as an enormous silverback gorilla in terms of movement and vocalizations, still manages to bring a surprising humanity to Kong. I'm hard pressed to remember the last time an animal protagonist has managed to capture our hearts and emotional involvement as much as Kong does, and Serkis definitely deserves accolades for re-creating such an iconic character in a beautiful fashion only through movement and body language. He also takes a hilarious supporting role as the grizzled and trigger-happy Lumpy the cook.

Overall, I think it is safe to say that King Kong succeeds on a level completely lost to most productions these days. Rarely are our emotions manipulated with such ease, rarely do we find ourselves getting so engrossed in a story that a 3 hour running time seems to have gone by far too quickly and we yearn for more. King Kong is an odyssey of a movie, and the most genuine and compelling output seen since... well, the Lord of the Rings. This is classic storytelling at its peak - don't miss out on it!

-10/10

Peter Jackson strikes again

[Mysterygeneration · 7/10 · 22 February 2023]

If a movie is three hours or longer, that usually means it already has two negative points against it. But even as the three hours and seven minutes passed, I didn't take my eyes off the television. If the "Rings" trilogies weren't enough to persuade you, now is the time for everyone to agree that Peter Jackson is one of the most imaginative individuals to ever hold the director's chair. This movie belongs to a unique class. Everyone who attempts to replicate "King Kong" should be imprisoned in a rubber room.

Then, you cram this classic remake with moving humanity, astounding amazing effects, and a ton of unforgettable imagery, and you do it all so flawlessly that it's bound to become a classic as well. In a word, Jackson's "King Kong" is amazing, fantastic, beautiful, and spectacular. I'm afraid I can't put it into one word.

Too many faults

[richard-hodges · 6/10 · 6 May 2010]

For a movie that had all the money and all the talent at its disposal, this remake/homage simply isn't satisfying enough to warrant its existence.

It has much to recommend it, not least of all, its director's obvious reverential affection for the subject. Jackson gives his story everything, it has plenty of time to breathe and be realised in all the glory that clearly believes it deserves. Further on the plus side, is the extraordinary creation that is Kong. This creature lives and breathes like er, a real thirty-foot ape. And stunningly was created entirely from talented minds and state-of-the-art computer software.

The films problems though, sadly, outweigh its positives.

As mentioned above, Jackson takes his time, but this the is films most obvious and destructive shortcoming: it's extreme over-length. Like many other blockbusters, King Kong should be an hour shorter.

Why oh why, create a film that runs a full 87 mins (!) longer than the original from which it draws its inspiration. All films have faults (yes, even Gone With the Wind) but few can recover from extreme overlength, regardless of its positive aspects.

The star trio, Watts, Black and Brody all deliver excellent performances. But each is miscast. Watts comes off best in what, frankly, is a can't-win role. Jackson has asked us to take the relationship between girl and Kong serious, but let's be honest... it just ain't right. Kitten, puppy, Hamster? Sure. 30 foot ape..? Hmmm.

CGI these days is a bit like the medical profession. There's so much they can do, but just as much they can't. The rendering of the title character is remarkable, it truly is. But so much of the surrounds, particularly in it's urban climax is comic book stuff. If that's the look Jackson was trying to achieve, then he got it bang on, but in a movie with a semi-serious tone (at the director's insistence), it's out of place.

Furthermore, there's too much that doesn't make sense. I accept that there's a suspension of disbelief in a movie that is set on an island where dinosaurs and giant apes roam free. But once you accept that, there still has to be a sense of realism about the proceedings. For example, once Kong had been chloroformed, how on earth did the remaining few men and women get him onto the boat and back to New York. As well, with a giant ape ripping NYC apart, and sending the general population into a spin, how the Kong and the girl manage to find a quiet street (for several minutes, by the way) to enjoy some alone time.

Finally, the bond (please, let's call it that) between the girl and the ape is cute... at first, but Jackson continually revisits the theme and spends more and more time re-emphasising that these two are BFFs. By the time they went ice skating together, I was like "I get it already, they're close."

Finally, for a movie with everything money can buy, and the advantage of 70 years advanced technology, it still doesn't manage to improve on the marvel that is/was Cooper and Schoedsack's original eighth wonder of the world. Maybe that's the way it should be.

Makes Jurassic Park look like Barney's playground!

[pastormark · 15 December 2005]

Don't get me wrong, I still love Jurassic Park, but the technology there is now twelve years old. Peter Jackson's KING KONG is the experience for which movies were invented. The CGI was incredible, the casting appropriate (this wasn't supposed to be an actor-driven, big-star film, after all), and the flow was satisfying. Even the somewhat slow build-up had a huge payoff once you see Kong running through the jungle with Ann in his giant hand. Is it a flawless movie? Probably not. But it Is a perfect example of why we go to movies in the first place-- to see things that we will never see in our real lives. When I walked out of the theater and was making my way through the deserted lobby, I had an odd feeling. Every poster I saw for an upcoming film kind of made me feel like all those movies were probably just going to be a waste of film next to KING KONG.

So over the top

[nlusher · 6/10 · 28 December 2005]

3 hours long. So much should have been cut. Just because you can create a CG sequence with King Kong being attacked by 5 T-Rex, you don't have to show it all.

The action sequences with the monsters on the island went on for too long, and there were too many monsters. The action sequences just seemed to repeat themselves.

If Peter Jackson was not so well respected after all the Oscars that he has already have won, then the editing team and the producers would have had the balls to leave half of the action scenes on the cutting room floor.

All the scenes in New York were fantastic, but it just took one hour too long to actually get to them.

great movie!!! another Peter Jackson masterpiece!!

[kensei_010 · 9/10 · 15 December 2005]

Peter Jackson gave this movie a new twist. I 've seen the old King Kong movies and they're quite great, but this one is exceptional!! The actors and actress Naomi gave the movie its own character and distinct traits from the original story. It fits them so well, but the most remarkable in this movie is KONG. Peter made the beast look like a real, living gorilla, only it's 25 feet tall. The actor who portrayed Kong is great. He gives the beast life, not just its brute strength and uncanny agility, but a heart of beast that is longing for a companion. In his eyes you can see the soul that suffers from the savagery of the island, but his love for Ann, he finds his way to conquer it. There are many scenes in this movie that will capture your heart and even make you cry. It's up for you to see. This movie is worth seeing for. This is a great remake from a great director (",).

The Lack Of Embellishment Disappoints

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 6 September 2008]

You'd need a heart of stone not to be touched by Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS , it is amongst the great masterworks of cinema and is a trilogy I love . However for some reason I failed to catch this at the cinema possibly down to my body needing frequent infusions of nicotine and caffeine , something that makes a three hour movie an ordeal at the best of times . I noticed this version made the IMDb top 250 movies but then slipped out again after a couple of weeks . I also remember at the time the number of well regarded film critics giving KING KONG something of a lukewarm response . Unlike LORD OF THE RINGS this movie became quickly forgotten by the public so much so that it wasn't until tonight when it was broadcast on network TV that I remembered it had existed in the first place !

If i'd spent £7 and three hours without nicotine and caffeine I'd have certainly given this remake of KING KONG a six . It's by no means a terrible film but does often feel like just another Hollywood blockbuster , not something you can say about LOTR . There's two problems with the movie

One: There's an overabundance of visual effects . LOTR had this too but there was also lots of location filming in the beautiful New Zealand wilderness not to mention hundreds of extras dressed up as orcs and humans . Here however you are aware that much of Skull Island appears to be created on a Hollywood stage rather than location filming .Crucify me if you want but the scene with the dinosaur stampede had me stifling a loud yawn while looking at my watch .

Two: The narrative follows the same structure as the original though it seems painfully drawn out . The unforgivable thing about this is when the remake goes its own way such as the scene at the bottom of the ravine where the landing party are attacked by giant insects the film becomes tense , frightening and reminds the audience why they pay money to watch movies at the cinema . Why didn't Jackson do a re imagining of a classic movie instead of a remake ?

As said it's not a bad movie and is a infinitely better than the remake from 1976 but the irritating thing is Jackson shows us the brilliance he is capable of but never follows through . Perhaps he has too much reverence for the original ? What isn't in doubt is the director's god given talent and it's disappointing to watch a movie by him which is merely only very good in short parts

totally awesome!

[eheadz · 10/10 · 15 December 2005]

I just arrived from the theater and still in shock with the new "King Kong" from Peter Jackson. It's a masterpiece. A jawbreaker. It's totally awesome! Never in my life I saw a blockbuster with so many layers of action, romance, adventure, love for the movie making and many others interpretations of a same theme. Jackson have a great sense as a director and never takes the easy way. The three hours passes by like a minute. Some of the scenes, specially in the third act, become instant classics of the movie history and will still forever in my mind. If I were Spielberg never do anything in this genre again. The moving pictures, the cinema as we know it, was just invented to Peter Jackson gave us this film. Ten!

While not as good as the 1933 classic, this is still a very good movie.

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 28 July 2009]

I do agree with anyone who says that the 2005 film isn't as good as the 1933 classic, but I did think it was very good. Many complained of the first hour or so being too slow, but I didn't find that. The stunning cinematography actually more than compensated, and throughout the movie Naomi Watts is a delight as Ann Darrow. Jack Black was an admittedly odd choice as Carl Denham but he still manages a worthwhile performance. Although Kong doesn't appear until an hour and a quarter into the movie, he was flawlessly designed, and credit also must go to Andy Serkis for performing him, as he did a fantastic job. In fact, the only weak performance comes from Adrien Brody, his performance was a little too wimpy for my liking. The film is superbly designed, with the amount of detail evident, and the direction from Peter Jackson was excellent. However, I was disturbed by a number of scenes, like any part with the aborigines, and when that flower thing sucked that man's face. My other criticism of the movie, was that although the scenes with Ann and Kong were well handled on the most part, I found the ice skating bit a bit too slushy and unconvincing. Despite the flaws King Kong may have, it was still a very good film, that I will happily award a 7/10. Bethany Cox

Had heart, soul and passion; Brilliant

[Dragoneyed363 · 9/10 · 15 April 2008]

I rewatched King Kong yesterday and was amazed at how wonderful it was, that I had not remembered it being. It's excellently paced, though some call it too long, and incredibly well played and thought out, with breathtaking performances, lovable characters brought by the amazing, superb cast and crew, and most of all a loving, humane, sensitive King Kong. There's no doubt for me that this captivating adventure is the best telling of King Kong to date.

The original was bland and boring with annoying characters and a cardboard King Kong; What Peter Jackson does with this story is put in a heart and should to give it edge and pizazz. It's fun, genuinely moving, never stops being interesting or entertaining, and will leave you wanting more from it's unimaginable excitement and quirky "beauty and the beast" sense. Naomi Watts gives one of her best performances, and other characters like Jack and Jimmy are so well played and structured that you grow to care for more than just one main character, including King Kong itself in this version; I felt compassion when he fell from the Empire building, because the movie takes so much time setting up all these different aspects and creating a true to heart and sincere atmosphere to where you will be shocked, riveted and blown away by it's surprising brilliance and succumb to a beautiful, awe inspiring story that deserves two big thumbs up for the vividness and intensity it portrays.

I loved this King Kong, and thought it to be tantalizing to every sense, leaving me feeling like I had spent my time and money on an actual and worthy movie, and not just some long, droning mess. It's passionate, mournful, subtle, satisfying, intense, and an impressive achievement in every field overall, end of story.

Enjoyable but....

[smsemden · 7/10 · 22 December 2005]

The 1933 King Kong was one of the greatest movies ever made and I had hoped the Peter Jackson remake would be faithful to the original. The special effects were outstanding and after reading complaints on how long the movie was I thought it went by at a good pace.

There were some scenes that should have been left out or modified such as the brontosaurus stampede, where if real, everyone would be killed and King Kong playing on ice as he was being chased.

As for the actors, Naomi Watts was great, Jack Black was OK but whoever cast Adrian Brody as a screenwriter ??? Jack Driscoll should be banned from movie-making. Jack Driscoll in the original was first mate and not a wimp. The actor who played the captain should have had the part of Driscoll. The following is not meant to be a racist comment but Blacks in 1933 working on ships were stewards not first mates.

Marien C. Cooper created a very tight and exciting movie that was better written and directed than this movie. Unfortunately Peter Jackson changed the premise of the movie where Ann Darrow was terrified of King Kong as she would be ,to an Ann Darrow who looked to be in love with King Kong ( thankfully there were no sex scenes ).

It is a shame that modern directors want wimpy male roles. Where are the Robert Mitchem, Lee Marvin, Steve Mc Queen John Wayne and Burt Lancaster types of real men? Well, we do have Harrison Ford, Denzell Washington, Russell Crow and Mel Gibson.

For the amount of work that went into this movie, it was entertaining, but it should have been so much better.