--- title: "King Kong: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/king-kong-2005/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/king-kong-2005" critics_score: 76 critics_reviews: 13 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # King Kong (2005): what the critics said Critics' score 76 from 13 reviews: 10 positive, 3 mixed, 0 negative. Most critics find Peter Jackson’s King Kong an entertaining, emotionally persuasive spectacle, with praise clustering around Kong himself. The effects work and Andy Serkis’s motion-capture performance give him an expressive presence, while Naomi Watts helps make the relationship between Kong and Ann convincing. The reviews also welcome the creature sequences and Jackson’s affectionate treatment of the original, though the central bond is what makes the scale worthwhile for many. Excessive length is the most consistent reservation, shared even by several enthusiastic reviews. The spread runs from wholehearted enthusiasm to mixed responses, with no outright negative verdicts; the main disagreement is over whether the emotion survives the padding and prolonged spectacle. Slant Magazine finds the film emotionally ineffective despite admiring its inventive, frightening Skull Island sequences, a marked departure from the majority’s response to Kong and Ann. ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 4/4. 13 December 2005. Ebert gives the film an enthusiastic verdict, praising its scale and emotional force. He singles out the central relationship between Kong and Ann for making the spectacle matter. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/king-kong-2005) ## Total Film — Total Film Rating 5/5. 16 December 2005. The review is enthusiastic, calling the film epic escapism despite its flaws and excessive length. It especially praises Kong’s emotional vitality, brought to life through Andy Serkis’s motion-capture performance and Jackson’s effects work. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/king-kong-review/) ## Empire — Dan Jolin Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. Jolin finds Jackson’s remake a triumph despite some padding and occasional unfinished effects. He especially praises Kong’s expressive, emotionally engaging performance, brought to life through Weta’s effects work. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/king-kong-review/) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 14 December 2005. Phipps finds Jackson’s remake a moving, wonder-filled success that honors the original without trying to surpass it. He especially praises Kong’s vivid characterization and the relationship with Watts that gives the film its emotional heart. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/king-kong-1798201340) ## Radio Times — Alan Jones Rating 4/5. Jones praises Jackson’s loving yet inventive homage to the original film. He singles out its expertly recreated sequences and renewed sense of thrilling escapism. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-ose22j/king-kong/) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Rating 4/5. 14 December 2005. Bradshaw finds the remake an entertaining, emotionally engaging spectacle, despite its excessive length. He particularly praises the achievement of bringing Kong vividly to life. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/movie/109736/king.kong-review) ## Evening Standard — Larushka Ivan-Zadeh Rating *****. 10 April 2012. The critic calls the film a must-see, though less affecting than the 1933 original. She singles out the pulse-racing dinosaur fights and the film’s enthusiastic spectacle for praise. [Read the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/go-ape-for-king-kong-7261347.html) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 6 December 2005. McCarthy finds the remake a stupendous, often overlong adventure that sometimes oversells its spectacle. He especially praises the emotionally convincing bond between Kong and Ann, and Naomi Watts’s expressive performance. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2005/film/awards/king-kong-5-1200519800/) ## Screen Daily — Mike Goodridge Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 7 December 2005. The review's verdict cannot be determined from the accessible page. No specific praise or complaint is visible in the available text. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/king-kong/4025417.article) ## Slant Magazine — Jeremiah Kipp Rating 2/4. 6 December 2005. Kipp finds the remake overlong and emotionally ineffective, despite its impressive spectacle. He praises Jackson’s inventive, frightening creature sequences on Skull Island. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/king-kong/) ## Time Out — BW Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). The review describes the film as powerful and beautiful but ultimately too unwieldy. It singles out the spectacle of Jackson’s colossal creation while faulting its excess. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/king-kong-3) ## Den of Geek — David Crow Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 10 March 2017. Crow argues that Jackson’s overlong, flawed film is an ambitious and moving tragedy worth revisiting. He especially praises Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis for making Kong and Ann’s connection feel empathetic and emotionally convincing. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/peter-jackson-s-king-kong-was-a-beautiful-messy-tragedy/) ## Eye for Film — Chris Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 16 December 2005. The review finds the film exceptionally entertaining and a thoughtful, if commercially constrained, remake. It praises Naomi Watts’s expressive performance and the added depth Jackson gives the familiar story. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/king-kong-film-review-by-chris) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/king-kong-2005.md