King Kong Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x816 | 16261.77 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x720 | 8981.83 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x296 | 1908.37 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x244 | 961.4 MiB | divx | |
|
320x132 | 400.23 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
The eighth wonder of the world.
Set in the 1930s, this is the story of a young and beautiful actress Ann Darrow from the world of vaudeville who finds herself lost in depression-era New York and her luck changes when she meets an over-ambitious filmmaker Carl Denham who brings her on an exploratory expedition to a remote island where she finds compassion and the true meaning of humanity with an ape Kong. The beauty and the beast finally meet their fate back in the city of New York where the filmmaker takes and displays the ape in quest of his fame by commercial exploitation which ultimately leads to catastrophe for everyone including a playwright Jack Driscoll who falls in love with Ann and plays an unlikely hero by trying to save her from Kong and her destiny.
| Naomi Watts | Ann Darrow |
| Jack Black | Carl Denham |
| Adrien Brody | Jack Driscoll |
| Thomas Kretschmann | Captain Englehorn |
| Colin Hanks | Preston |
| Andy Serkis | Kong/Lumpy |
| Evan Parke | Hayes |
| Jamie Bell | Jimmy |
| Lobo Chan | Choy |
| John Sumner | Herb |
| Craig Hall | Mike |
| Kyle Chandler | Bruce Baxter |
| Mark Hadlow | Harry |
| Geraldine Brophy | Maude |
| David Denis | Taps |
| Peter Jackson |
| Bryan Singer |
7.80 out of 10 (77047 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Fed up...
posted on 30 Aug 2009I do hope that sometimes soon, people will decide to stop going to movies, until Hollywood can pull itself together again. I'm sure this will never happen. But personally I will not go to or rent any new movies. This was my final straw. I was already angry that someone in Hollywood chose to remake one of the most racist movies of all time but I wasn't shocked. This long obscene movie was just pathetic and just another in a long line of bad new releases. How are these people getting production money for these terrible films? And I do wish black folks would stop complaining about racism if we are just going to continue to participate in racist films that have us dancing and jumping around in front of the camera like coons. How do you expect to be respected when we keep participating in our own disrespect?? There are so many things wrong with this film, there simply isn't enough time to dwell on them.
far too long
posted on 28 Aug 2009I agree that this movie is nicely designed... the actors were good... if not very good. The action scenes were cool and spectaculars and everything...I found very pleasant that the spirit of the movie from 1933 were always here... but there is a certain number of sequences which are useless, long and slow down the film.so please Mr Jackson can you keep these scenes for the DVD collector version... as you did for LOTR ?for me its just one hour too longtime to say CUT!
Best. Film. Ever!
posted on 28 Aug 2009I love absolutely everything about this film and I'm not put off by the running time at all. If anything the three hours just pass by in a streak! There's not really a lot I can say that other people haven't but I implore people to see this film at least once. The actors are perfect for this film; Jack Black in particular is a delight to watch as he's suitably over the top which is exactly what his character needed to be. And the island is a character in itself. It's the original nightmare jungle that filmmakers have always been trying to recreate but yet have never been able to. It's wonderfully twisted scenery is a real stunner to behold.The only thing that does bother me a little is the fact the T-Rex has three fingers (I'm just pedantic: it's always bothered me that people do this ALL the time). However, I suppose they get away with it because it still looks fantastic and strictly speaking it's a V-Rex, not a T-Rex...
Bloated remake is good but twice as long as it needs to be.
posted on 26 Aug 2009I don't hate the latest version of the Kong story, I just wish it wasn't so damn long and bloated. This is a long explanation of why I don't think its great film and CONTAINS NUMEROUS POTENTIAL SPOILERS.I know many will think I'm crazy, already one friend has threatened not to speak to me, but I must insist that this new version is excessive as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films are economical. Everything goes on much too long. For example it takes us an hour to reach Skull Island, during which time we are introduced to a good many characters who then simply disappear into the void at a later point in the film. The pacing is all wrong. Scenes just go on and on and on. We have long lovely shots of the scenery where nothing happens. Yes it looks nice but it slows everything down. Look at the original film, it moved like the wind and had sequences (spider pit) cut to pick up the pace. I don't think Jackson cut a blessed thing. (It got so bad that toward the end of the film I had to restrain myself from screaming "would you just die already" to the mortally wounded gorilla) And once we get to skull island Jackson insists on over doing everything, why have one when fifteen will do nicely? Yes, the three T-Rex scene is perfectly balanced but everything else is just too much (for example the insects and bat creatures). Amping everything up is a nice idea but Jackson frequently writes himself in a corner he can only escape using a deus ex machina or in this case a character who shows up just when things are darkest. Yes, the sequences are fun, but I never felt this cheated by any of the 100 or so old movie serials I've seen. I won't bother to discuss the New York sequence, other than to say why doesn't Ann freeze to death? Again I don't hate this movie, it just very disappointing, and way too long. Wait for the crowds to die down before rushing out, or better yet wait for home video when you can use the fast forward to cut away the excess.
A piece of trash is better than this movie
posted on 26 Aug 2009This movie was terrible! I saw the midnight showing, and I was considering walking out several times. I was praying Peter Jackson would do himself some justice! This is probably the slowest movie I have ever seen in my entire life. You don't even see the ape until an hour into the movie. I thought at least the actors would carry along the scene, but no. There's hardly any dialogue, however, Jack Black gets to do a few dramatic soap opera faces. Did I saw a few? I mean, ever time he's on the screen. Oh, and what the crap was with all the bugs and dinosaurs? King Kong is not worth seeing, unless you are going to the dollar cinemas. Bring your blanket and pillow!
OK Film Way To Long
posted on 26 Aug 2009Peter Jackson needs a good editor. That was the primary thing that was spinning in my mind as I left King Kong. Yes it was a pretty good film, good cast, excellent effects and naturally beautiful to look at. But the film is waaaaaayyyy to long. You could have cut over an hour out of this feature and still had a good movie. I honestly felt that Jackson was fulfilling some boyhood fantasy of making Kong the way he felt is should be made instead of thinking of his audience.Kong himself was OK but in truth I felt no emotional connection with him as I did with the 76 versions. His supposed connection with Anna seemed more like a giant monkey playing with a new toy, something different he had never seen before. I felt that there were no genuine feelings between them.All the effects with the dinosaurs and especially the T-Rex's was totally unnecessary and did nothing for the film except to extend its already bladder bursting length to almost painful proportions. Even my wife who is a big Kong fan turned to me three quarters way through the film and said "Enough already" I think that pretty much sums it up.4 out of 10
Well Worth a Look
posted on 26 Aug 2009I am biased. I am a big fan of King Kong and as a child never tired of seeing the 1933 version.It was great to let the child loose again and go to see the 2005 version.Everything I wanted from my King Kong monster movie was there but better done and more of it. Thankfully now back into the 1933 setting, the movie has more preamble than its predecessors, which others have found to be boring. I enjoyed it as I knew what was coming and was happy to wait by letting the story go at its own pace.When Kong appears, the film moves at 100mph and never lets up apart from one point in New York, involving ice. However even this moment gets shattered, just as you're starting to calm down and your on your way again.This is a retelling of the 1933 version with extra scenes involved. A 72 year wait for the directors cut, if you like.The only reason I gave it 9 is because some of the CGI, in places, is a touch dodgy. Mainly involving Kong shaking Ann about. A minor glitch that shouldn't stop you trying to see this film on the big screen if you can.
The worst film I have ever seen!
posted on 26 Aug 2009This film is terrible, because it is ridiculously long and some parts were just pointless and din't add to the story at all. Like the scene where they were being chased by the dinosaurs. As far as I can remember there was no point to this scene and some of it was just blatantly the actors running in front of a green screen.And, the scene with the T-Rex fight was too long and it's ridiculous that Ann didn't get killed as she was in king Kong's hand most of the time. They could have cut out the scene where they were fighting the bugs, the scene where they holding on to the log and king Kong was trying to make them fall off, and they could have got rid of the scene right at the start with Ann and the old guy, and the theatre closing down. they could have just started the film on the boat on the way to skull Island , they would have lost most of an hour and they wouldn't have missed anything very important.The Scene with King Kong Ice-Skating was really bad, the fact that the ice didn't crack with Kong's weight didn't make any sense. the film really was just awful in general.
A great remake that's much too long for its own good
posted on 26 Aug 2009Simply put, the original King Kong is one of the best movies ever made. And when I heard that this classic was going to be remade, I began to set my expectations to cautiously optimistic. This is mainly because I had seen a similar situation with Hulk. They both had world-class directors on board, they both had big budget special effects, they both were commercially promoted a lot, and now, they both flopped at the box office (relatively). But King Kong one-ups 2003's green flop by staying faithful to the original story. However, the length keeps Kong down from attaining a rank of a god among remakes.The story, while adding a lot of background details to the Kong mythos, is pretty much the same as the original. Movie team goes to mystical island, movie team is assaulted by tribesmen, actress is sacrificed to big gorilla, gorilla grows a love interest in actress, crew attempts to rescue actress, you get the idea. The visual effects are obviously upgraded for 2005 (albeit setting standards for CGI design, as usual for WETA). The booms and roars that is the sound of this film is among the loudest out there, meaning you won't go to sleep mid-movie.King Kong would be a perfect remake if not for one major flaw: the length. And this isn't the Director's Remade Version either. This is the whole movie. I mean, length is good when you're making Lord of the Rings, but Kong is not at all an epic. It's a monster movie. Speaking of which, you don't even see any monsters until over an hour in. This movie should have stuck with it's original running time, which is still big for a monster movie. If this is how long the real thing is, I can only imagine how big the Director's Recut is. Overall, while the original obviously is much better than the remake, the new version is not at all that bad. It just needed A LOT more editing.
Technically Perfect, But Too Long and Without the Charm of the Classic
posted on 26 Aug 2009The original King Kong is a masterpiece and one of the greatest movies of the cinema history. In 1993, "Jurassic Park" was a great sensation. This 2005 remake of King Kong is technically perfect, blending "King Kong" with "Jurassic Park". Unfortunately, it does not have the charm of the original movie. The story is too long, and was partially miscast: Jack Black in the role of the ambitious director and Adrien Brody as romantic pair of Naomi Watts do not fit well. However, Naomi Watts is excellent performing the beauty that defeats the beast. Peter Jackson's version entertains; the younger generations will certainly love; but the 1933 is better and better. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "King Kong"
Minor flaws
posted on 26 Aug 2009I don't know why certain losers complain so much about the first half of this movie. It was certainly more polished and subtle than what I expected from Jackson and it was truly amazing. As the build up to the chaos that occurs on the island, it really works.Peter jackson has really outdone himself through this effort. The tension that certain scenes built up were truly amazing. There are only a few flaws in this movie and those are basically bad CGI effects used for some dinosaurs, especially the ones that stampede. Their designs could have also been a little more refined to make them look a little more realistic. Otherwise, this movie is fantastic and is an absolute must watch.
Too long and boring in parts
posted on 26 Aug 2009This is the 3rd installment of King Kong. 1933, 1976 and 2005. Peter Jackson's version of king Kong was not what they made it out to be when it was released at the cinema. After watching the original and then the 76 version the latest version is way too long and boring in parts. They spend too much time on the boat heading out to the island. Where did the dinosaur's come from? In the 33 and 76 films there was no dinosaur's, large insects or spiders. I forget in the 33 film Kong did have a fight with a dinosaur. but that was only one. I'm not saying this film is a total waste of time it's quite enjoyable. It is a bit too long though. If they had taken some of the scenes out that had nothing to do with the film it would have been much better
I was blown away
posted on 24 Aug 2009I was blown away by the movie. I knew it would be good and I hoped it would be close to this good, but it even surpassed all my expectations. The realism is unbelievable and the emotion that comes from the animated creations is almost to good to be believed. If you only go to one movie a year make it this one, it will make you go to more. Good movie producers can do anything now, there are no more limits to what we can and will see as viewers, this is an exciting time. I worked in Return of the Jedi as a Storm Trooper, Black Imperial officer and gray Imperial officer and I thought Star Wars realism was second to none then, that I had seen it all, boy was I wrong. What is next for the viewing public! Peter Jackson knows what he wants when he sets out to make a movie, now we know why he was so excited to do Kong, he knew what he could do with it. I can't wait to see his next work.
A near miss for Peter Jackson
posted on 24 Aug 2009Pete jackson is a really good director who has made some really good movies, but this movie had the potential to be great. But it was a missed opportunity. The special effects were fantastic, but that doesn't decide the quality of the movie. While the original was far from a masterpiece, it contained only what was essential to the story, and peter jackson for some reason, decided to go the other way. there are many scenes that are completely unnecessary and plain disgusting. i almost walked out of the theator.This movie had the potential to be great, but it was a missed opportunity that completely disappointed me. I don't recommend it.
overdone
posted on 24 Aug 2009This is just another big, long, noisy, CGI cardboard box of a movie that ends up being empty inside. There is little charm, sense of wonder, imagination, suspense, or enjoyment in this movie. Perhaps one hour shorter may have made the viewing worthwhile. The dinosaur sequence was shoddy looking and silly. If remakes are necessary they should be a clever and obvious tribute to its mother not a blubbering and clueless orphan. The original is still enjoyable entertainment over 70 years later. Its story and production is clever, imaginative, and exciting. I seriously doubt this 2005 remake will be as enjoyable 70 years hence.
Lives up to every expectation!
posted on 22 Aug 2009When I usually hear that some director is going to try and re-create a classic movie, I usually just roll my eyes and say, "Sure, you can do that, but it will always be remembered as a remake." Not this time. Peter Jackson has established himself as Lord of Adventure Films with "King Kong", one of the most breathtaking movies I can remember seeing for quite some time. I actually saw this twice, and enjoyed it both times. Jackson has made a movie that will not be remembered as a remake, but as an entity of its own, and that's something that most filmmakers dream of. The special effects are superb, the acting is great, the script never fails... I can go on and on like this for a while. For the 21st century, it's not Kong who's king... it's Jackson!
Over the Top (Contains Spoilers)
posted on 20 Aug 2009I was expecting to see a good / great movie after watching the previews of the film but was really disappointed. The first half of the movie is boring and once they get to Skull Island it only gets worse. I guess Peter Jackson had a hangover from LOTR. He probably wanted to make an epic but he should have realised that a story about an overgrown ape can only be pushed so far. Anyone else notice how the natives on Skull Island reminded one of the orcs. The other thing that I wondered about were all the creepy crawlies and those weird pink things (???) when the fall into the gorge (maybe from the Skull Island series) & the other scene where they are running from the dinosaurs.The only interesting thing is when Kong takes on the T-Rex.Visually I guess the movie is good but that can get you only so far. Kong is very realistic & the cgi is great. As for the acting Jack Black (???) & Adrien Brody are totally miscast while Naomi Watts is passable. All in all unless you are a die hard Kong fan I'd give this movie a miss.
Long and a little slow, but all in all a great Peter Jackson film
posted on 20 Aug 2009I think this movie had many positive and negative points to it. Long movies are not always a bad thing. Peter Jackson did an excellent job with Lord of the Rings and the trilogy's time content was not a problem. Kong was long, and quite enjoyable, but there were many points when enough was enough. The problem with this film was that Jackson takes so much time with the sentimental moments that he has to rush all the action filled scenes together so that the audience member hardly ever gets a break from the character's turmoil. I realize this is not a comedy (and there were some comedy moments) but the audience member should be able to get a breath in between the intense events such as between the T-Rex scene and the bug pit scene. I thought the turmoil was never going to end. It was all rushed together.The photography and all the effects that were done is this movie were very good. I expected no less from a Peter Jackson film that had Andrew Lesnie and Richard Taylour working on it, so I was not disappointed there. I thought the Actors were well cast and that the audience member was able to feel for Kong at the end (like you should be able to). Then of course there were the moments that made an audience member realize this was definitely Peter Jackson moment like when Kong was messing around with the T-Rex's Jaw. That was definitely something only Jackson would have thought of. The Lava flow reminds me a lot of LOTR though. Although, This is a great movie and Jackson does an amazing job. I do think you should see it because the film quality is amazing, and even though some of the emotional scenes take a long time, they are wonderful. (Plus it's fun to look at Adrian Brody)
Jackson's Soulful, Spunky, Spectacular Labor of Love
posted on 18 Aug 2009I 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.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
One of the worst movies to come out!!!!!
posted on 30 Aug 2009If you like good graphics and the worst mess up of an original ever then go watch this movie! OK i agree the movie is from an original which had the ability to be a good movie. The problem with the remake is that they have put all the focus on graphics and none on making the actual story as real as it should be. Firstly, king kong could never fight off a t-rex let alone three. Another way to look at it is that a normal gorilla wouldn't be able to kill three raptors. The producers took this movie and made absolute shambles of it. There were just so many mistakes it was unbelievable. How can a top class production company oversee such vital elements of a movie, this i will never understand. Another thing i cant understand is how many people rate this movie a good movie? Please can someone enlighten me. If this is what the masses enjoy then I tend to wander where people intelligence and cultural integrity has disappeared too. If anyone wants to challenge me on this crit you are more than welcome to, this is my opinion and i really would love to hear yours! Yours sincerely peuge