King Kong - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

King Kong Reviews

Page 1 of 38001
½ April 26, 2017
Peter Jackson retell the story of this giant ape trapped on a mysterious island and being brought back to the main land by a film crew. It's fast, well written, no dead time, great CGI & special effects. The cast is really great and the film a great success... in my opinion better than the 1933 original but if i say that some people might skin me alive, so keep it for yourself.
April 24, 2017
(I'm referring to the extended cut.) The first two and a half hours are a pretty great king kong movie! The last 50 minutes are just unnecessary and weird, especially the end.
½ April 16, 2017
Can they make Naomi watts any more helpless. I mean at this point I don't even know if she could fight herself out of a wet paper bag
April 13, 2017
Fantastic!!! And epic in every way
April 9, 2017
After having just watched Kong Island, all I could think of was how it wasn't a patch on King Kong (2005). Such a shame.
April 4, 2017
Whilst appreciated for it's great style, classy approach and an excellently realised Kong, there are one or two niggles.

A couple of ridiculously over the top jungle action sequences with dinosaurs sadly take you out of the picture for a while and it's probably 20-30 minutes too long.

Still, a good movie very well made.
½ April 1, 2017
The beginning SLUGGED along but when it got to the actual island (minus the natives) was fun film. Far from perfect but fun. It ran about an hour and a half too long.
March 28, 2017
Comparing audience reactions between the Peter Jackson movie and the recent Skull Island leaves me scratching my head. I guess it's a bad idea to try to do more - either that or more was being demanded of Peter Jackson because of the LotR movies. Regardless it should be emphasized that, audience scores notwithstanding, Peter Jackson's King Kong is the far superior movie. It's better than Skull Island and it's also better than the Jessica Lange Version from the 1970s. I'm not going to go as far as to say it's better than the Fay Wray version - there's no point in comparing any remake to the original as beloved as the original King Kong.
March 28, 2017
Pretty underrated movie in my opinion, it has good CGI and a pretty entertaining scenes, I also think that Adrian Brody is a good lead and Naomi Watts is a good damsel in destress, so in the end a pretty good remake.
March 28, 2017
Oh man....n00bs complaining that it was too long; don't understand epics.
March 27, 2017
With impressive visuals and a timeless story, Peter Jackson's King Kong is heart warming and entertaining but is way too overlong and has comedic sequences added which are completely unnecessary.
½ March 24, 2017
Everyone loves a good love triangle. Especially when it involves a man, a woman, and ... a 25-foot gorilla? That's right, I'm talking about the one and only "King Kong", or at least Peter Jackson's remake of it.

Of course, over 70 years after the original was released, it is worth mentioning the advancement of technology since then. The visual effects of "King Kong" are top notch. Everything looks great: Kong, the landscapes of Skull Island, and even dinosaurs that would make "Jurassic Park" jealous.

The cast of "King Kong" is likewise fantastic, resulting in some very interesting characters. Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow and Adrien Brody as Jack Driscoll are both excellent leads, though I don't entirely buy their whirlwind romance. Also, it's refreshing to see Jack Black in a role where he isn't making fart jokes. But seriously, he does deliver a good performance as the sly, deceitful Carl Denham. And of course, I have to mention the excellent motion capture work done by Andy Serkis, which brought Kong to life.

This film suffers mostly from its slow pace. For example, it is 70 minutes into the film before Kong makes his first appearance. While the slow pace allows for plenty of character development, it makes certain parts of the film drag on.

Peter Jackson's overlong remake of this Hollywood classic is certainly a beautiful work of art, but it is a loooong 3 hours to sit through. That said, it is well worth it because this "King Kong" pays great homage to the original.
½ March 21, 2017
130124: There are some really fun special effects in this film, and then there are some really poor special effects in this film. King Kong's battle scene where he takes on the meat eaters is great but I found many other scenes looked fake. The islanders are down right scary looking, expecially if you're eight. This movie is long, the first hour being a bit slow. It picks up from there though and is satisfying enough not to feel as though you wasted three hours.
jamrcla
Super Reviewer
March 20, 2017
Amazing in many ways, Dull in some, The effects were great but there was allot of green screen used and some bits just came across silly like the scene when the dinosaurs were chasing them looked too fake to really feel the danger, The acting was good, The action and there was allot more than I expected thanks to the adding of dinosaurs and big creatures that were impressive, my only faults were it was overlong which wasn't a total bad thing but the first hour I forgot that I was watching King Kong and thought I was watching a film about a failed actress in New York but apart from that it's one of the best remakes you will ever see.
March 20, 2017
Jackson's life-long love of Kong seriously hindered the plot of what could have been a good movie. It's an hour too long & has a number of quite ridiculous scenes that go too far with the suggested 'love' between Kong & Watts' Ann Darrow.
Despite brilliant production design & set pieces, the CGI (despite the technological advances) doesn't have the same "it looks like it's really there" wow factor that 'Jurassic Park' had 12 years prior. Acting-wise it's surprisingly only Jack Black who stands out for his performance as the foolhardy filmmaker.
Despite making Kong's behaviour believable to a novice viewer, Jackson as ever drags the ending out a bit too long atop the Empire State, subjecting us to a number of close-up shots of the CGI gorilla looking dramatic (as if aiming for an Oscar nod for best actor).
If you can bear sitting still for three hours then this film is definitely worth watching for the elements that work, but ultimately it fails to match up to 'Lord Of The Rings'.
½ March 19, 2017
It's like a really bad Jurrasic Park. Poor casting choice and no chemistry. Bad script, directing and score.
March 19, 2017
The action is exciting, the special effects are dazzling, and Peter Jackson definitely captured the spirit of the original 1933 film.

Grade: A+
½ March 18, 2017
One of the most underrated and overlooked movies ever made on the face of the planet. Peter Jackson is my favorite director of all time, and he put in a lot of extreme craft, passion, emotion, and spirit into this remake of the 1933 original, which is the movie that had inspired him to be a filmmaker ever since he was a young child. I also don't see what some people have against Jack Black...like, at ALL, because not only did I bought into his character and fully understood his motivations in this film, but he has shown that he is NOT always just a goofy comedian! He gave some excellent dramatic acting chops in here, and I even felt for the guy at times throughout. What are you people complaining about, really?
½ March 18, 2017
Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong gives the original a visual update while retaining the epic, engrossing story that made the original a classic.
Page 1 of 38001