ROTTEN TOMATOES: Critical Consensus: A Sly "Family Stone," A Towering "Kong"

Critical Consensus: A Sly "Family Stone," A Towering "Kong"

by Tim Ryan | December 15, 2005

This week at the movies, we have a giant ape {"King Kong"} and some yuletide dramedy ("The Family Stone"). Will the critics go bananas for these flicks?

It seems that virtually every holiday film is set in New England (where it snows), and revolves around the eccentric and conflict-prone but otherwise loving family members who are meeting the protagonist's significant other for the first time. "The Family Stone," starring Diane Keaton, Sarah Jessica Parker, Rachel McAdams and a host of other likeable actors, has all these elements, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Rather, critics are split on the matter; some feel that "The Family Stone" is sly, sharp, and funny, but others say it's a bit too clichéd to fully register. Like the Christmas turkey on the 27th of December, "The Family Stone" is currently fresh, but at 60 percent on the Tomatometer, it's not the freshest.

Oh, and you may have heard about this movie involving a big ape, that was based on this other movie about a big ape that everyone likes. It's called "King Kong," and it was directed by this guy named Peter Jackson, who did some movies you might have heard of. Anyway, "Kong" is Certified Fresh, at 84 percent on the Tomatometer, which means that a lot of critics think it's really good. Just so you know.

Holiday Movies:
-------------------
4% -- Christmas With the Kranks (2004)
8% -- Surviving Christmas (2004)
84% -- Elf (2003)
73% -- Bad Santa (2003)
87% -- It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

Related Items

Movie:	Elf
	The Family Stone
	Christmas with the Kranks
	The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy
	Surviving Christmas
	It's a Wonderful Life
	Bad Santa
Celeb:	Peter Jackson
	Sarah Jessica Parker
	Diane Keaton
	Rachel McAdams

(1-6 of 6 posts) | Reply

Scott Weinberg writes:
on Dec 15 2005 07:26 PM

I once saw a movie called Jackson's "King Kong"
People kinda liked it but said "too long."
(I think those people need to lay off the bong.)
The ape is massive and spooky and strong
Mowin' down intruders like they was Vietcong.
I believe it's good we never saw Kong's dong,
Cuz a big giant monkey looks bad in a thong
So go see the flick and bring some friends along
On a big screen is where the ape belong
And if you say this movie stinks, you're just plain wrong.
You shoulda stayed home and played some Pong.
And that's the end of my King Kong song.

(Reply to this)

Infernal writes:
on Dec 15 2005 08:19 PM

[b]Oh, very good.[/b]
Bravo, my brother, bravo!

Anyway, yes, as you could easily predict, I wrote on a black t-shirt with white paint 'kong power' and went to see this incredibly grand film at first showing, 11:59 P.M. Wednesday night. I want to marry it. Very badly. Peter Jackson is by far the most talented director I have ever seen. Great job, Jackson, you own the movie industry.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Dec 16 2005 05:12 AM

Although I was not quite as blown away as my two compatriots above (nice ditty, by the way, Mr. Weinberg) I did find KK indeed an extremely enjoyable movie and well worth the time invested. I want to see it again not sitting quite so close to the screen. It was hard to take everything in.

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on Dec 16 2005 01:45 PM

I'm seeing Syriana tonight, King Kong tomorrow and The Family Stone sunday. Nice ditty indeed Mr. Weinberg.

(Reply to this)

hippiekiller writes:
on Dec 17 2005 02:41 AM

king kong was pretty good. not amazing, but definately good.

(Reply to this)

southfrisco writes:
on Dec 18 2005 08:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#828950)
[b]$50+ mill for Kong isn't so grand[/b]
I just read that Kong took in $50 mill in five days? WOW, I thought it would be closer to $100 mill. I love movies but the trend seems to be continuing. With DVDs coming out 3 months after a film releases I think more people just want to watch DVDs at home with friends or go outside and do something FUN rather than watching a big screen for three hours. The technology is here to watch movies at home and the only difference is you don't have a GIANT screen. Also it is MUCH cheaper. It looks good but with little time that I have (probably watch 3-4 or less movies a year in the theater) this is probably a DVD rental for me.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com