IMDb > King Kong (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
King Kong
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
King Kong More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 263:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 2624 reviews in total 

616 out of 929 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: BuddyBoy1961 from Los Angeles, California
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?, 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, ' 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!) 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

744 out of 1244 people found the following review useful:

Truly A Masterpiece!

Author: BigHardcoreRed from Calimesa, California
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

Was the above review useful to you?

748 out of 1285 people found the following review useful:

Too much, too long, too bad

Author: Andrew Irwin from United States
18 December 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

678 out of 1167 people found the following review useful:


Author: EvilAdam from Jersey City, NJ
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

499 out of 844 people found the following review useful:

A roaring success

Author: Elliott Noble from London, England
9 December 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

296 out of 461 people found the following review useful:

King Bomb

Author: jack_thursby from United States
16 January 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Where oh where did it all go wrong? You had a $200 million budget, special effects wizards up the wazoo and Peter "LOTR" Jackson directing a bona fide classic that could only benefit from a modern retelling. However, the end result -- a bloated, melodramatic, self-indulgent dog's breakfast of a movie -- proves the maxim that sometimes, "less is more." King Kong is a very simple story, in fact, its almost a parable or fable, and the drama and excitement is all in how you tell that story. The original Kong (1933), despite its dated effects, still remains a gripping, moving experience because of the way the story is told through the magic of the cinema. Peter Jackson obviously hasn't watched the original for some time because his version takes all the magic out and replaces it with boring special effects and long running sequences that badly need editing. Why Jackson decided to stretch this simple movie to over 3 hours is a question only he can answer.

There's so much wrong with this disaster, that it would take a King Kong-sized review to describe, so I'm just going to list some of the lowlights:

1) At over 3 hours, its far too much movie for far too little story. So we get tons of sequences that run well past their expiration date and bog the movie down. At least 45 minutes to 1 hour could have been cut and you wouldn't lose a thing.

2) Too much melodrama between Kong and Ann Darrow. If a love story between a gigantic ape and a woman makes your socks roll up and down then you won't mind the endless scenes of Ann and Kong staring deeply into each others eyes, but if it doesn't, you'll be rolling your eyes and looking at your watch as I was.

3) Too much melodrama concerning King Kong. Jackson's King Kong loves sunsets, jokes and ice skating. He so makes us want to feel empathy and love for Kong that he beats us over the head with it and then beats us some more. King Kong is a monster Peter, not a lovelorn single looking for a potential mate. The transformation of Kong from king of the monsters to misunderstood metro-sexual turns the movie into sentimental rubbish.

4) Shoddy CGI sequences that run on and on and on and on.... but you get the idea. CGI Kong looks great, except for when he's fighting, but the rest of the CGI, especially the green screens are amateurish. For a high budget effects movie, some of the effect sequences really are dismal and detract from the viewing experience. "Jurassic Park" is over 10 years old and its effects are better than Kong's and that is not a point in King Kong's favor.

5) Rampant stupidity. In the original, Kong fights a T-Rex who has threatened Ann, and defeats it an fantastic fighting sequence. Jackson has Kong fight 3 T-Rexes utilizing a variety of martial arts moves, it was almost like watching Neo-Kong from the Matrix. To top it all off, the T-Rexes bite Kong but cause no damage. No wonder Kong wins, when your opponents can't hurt you the outcome of the fight is obvious.

6) Poor character development and story arch. Ostensibly there is a love story between Ann Darrow and Jack Driscoll, but Ann's love for Kong is so strong that it overwhelms whatever relationship she had with Driscoll. So why keep it in the movie? Given the changes Jackson made in the core relationships, he should have changed Ann and Jack's story as well, because as is, its utterly idiotic. And that's just one example, the movie is full of this kind of bad scripting and characterization.

Was the above review useful to you?

533 out of 941 people found the following review useful:

A Monumental Success of a Movie

Author: pyrocitor from Ontario, Canada
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!


Was the above review useful to you?

439 out of 768 people found the following review useful:

Jackson's Soulful, Spunky, Spectacular Labor of Love

Author: Dorian Tenore-Bartilucci (dtb) from Whitehall, PA
6 December 2005

I was one of the lucky winners of the Kong is 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

236 out of 364 people found the following review useful:

Over Hyped

Author: flame2ie from Ireland
10 January 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This has to be one of the most over-hyped movies of all time, a veritable 'King Kong' of a movie deflated to Bubbles the chimp stature with its wooden acting, naff sequences, contrived plot and extreme length. As the saying goes 'its not how big you are but how you use it!" Unfortunately Mr. Jackson feels the need to release onto us the Bigger, Longer and Uncut version from the get go.

To wade into this movie is to find yourself in a jungle but in the end having sifted through everything all you get is a monkey-nut. To begin with its one basic flaw is that its too long by far, over an hour too long. Jackson feels the need to show us all Ann Darrows workmates at the theatre one by one. He develops them to a point where you're thinking they're going to be integral to the story and then he swiftly moves, he does it with the crew of Venture. Lots of scenes with them, pointless in the end especially when they die, they just seem like cannon fodder for our amusement. There is just too much of everything in King Kong. Too many characters to begin with, too many natives, too many monsters, Kong fights off not one, not two, but three t-rex's at the same time. Denham and Driscoll are not attacked by one or two big bugs, but a gazillion of them. At this point I was shaking my fist at the screen Its as if Jackson sat in a suite at Weta, like a kid in a candy store and said, I'll have two those, ten of those, seven of those and twelve of those etc etc. Too much, quality not quantity Mr. Jackson. There are some cringe worthy moments too, especially in the dinosaur chase scene, with Adrien Brody punching, yes punching a Velociraptor (Steven must be laughing extremely loudly) in the face all the while not trying to get stamped on by some brontosaurus , gimme a break.

The scenes between Ann and Kong begin funny, but turn stupid as Jackson has some how turned the beast of Kong into a docile and almost human like character, I was half expecting the pair to get down to some frantic love-making by the end of it, cringe, cringe cringe.

I could go on and on and on, oh I could, but the most glaring contrivance occurs at the very beginning when we are cheated out of an explanation. Denham played by Jack Black is trying to convince his film financiers to give him more money, but having seen his rushes they're not convinced. However, Denham pulls from his pocket a map no less, of Skull Island, a map nobody else has, annnnnd thats it. No back-story, no 'where did he get that map' no dodgy Asian guy in a pawn shop, no mystic Mr. Miagi, no cults, no Nazis, no nothing. Denham just has the map, the map on which the whole movie rests, a poor downtrodden director has this map, where did he get it!!!!!! Is that to be saved for King Kong 2: Son of Kong, I guess so, but I'll be in no rush to see that, but I was in a rush to leave the theatre to avoid the 17, yes SEVENTEEN minute end credits.

Was the above review useful to you?

285 out of 463 people found the following review useful:

I just could not suspend that much disbelief!

Author: Ren Kessler from Las Flores, CA
18 December 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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 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 believability, 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 theatre? 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 ripped to shreds during her ordeal in the jungle? Why did her hair stay nice and neat and her dress 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 a skimpy 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? 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 theatre 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 263:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history