Ann Darrow stands between Kong and a roaring dinosaur in a misty jungle clearing
Film review

King Kong

2005 · Directed by Peter Jackson · 3h 08m

In a sentenceWe would happily spend an evening with Kong, though his director need not have taken that quite so literally

In Depression-era New York, out-of-work performer Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) needs a job. Film-maker Carl Denham (Jack Black) offers her a part in a production that will take her overseas, while keeping his destination secret. Playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) finds himself aboard the departing ship, under the command of Captain Englehorn (Thomas Kretschmann). Ann wants paid work; Denham wants footage that will keep his film alive. As the voyage takes them towards Skull Island, the passengers have different ideas about what they have signed up for.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Peter Jackson’s King Kong makes the bond between Ann Darrow and the ape matter enough to carry a long evening. Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis give it tenderness; the repeated action sequences make its 188 minutes harder work than necessary.

Peter Jackson’s King Kong is a moving, often thrilling adventure that could use a firmer cut. At 188 minutes, it asks us to share its director’s appetite for every creature, every danger and every extra complication. We can, for long stretches, because the film takes both the excitement and the people caught in it seriously. It also understands an essential requirement of a giant-monster film: there must be a reason to care when the creature stops making a mess.

That reason is Ann Darrow, played by Naomi Watts with an alertness that keeps the effects from doing all the acting. She gives each response time to register, making an exchange possible without needing words from both participants. We were moved by the attention they pay each other, especially the sense that she is watching him as closely as he watches her. The tenderness feels earned because neither performance makes their growing understanding seem easy or inevitable.

Andy Serkis’s performance gives Kong enough distinct reactions for us to begin anticipating his behaviour. He remains sufficiently unpredictable that his strength still worries us, even when our sympathies are with him. The effects work succeeds because we become absorbed in wondering what he will do next. Peter Jackson allows these encounters time to develop, and the pauses give the creature a personality that survives the surrounding commotion.

Grant Major’s production design gives New York enough bustle and detail to hold our attention before the expedition gets going. The temptation is to keep looking around the frame, even when the story could use a push towards the sea. Andrew Lesnie’s cinematography helps keep the people readable amid the size and activity of their surroundings. The occasional unconvincing effect is noticeable, but the images usually give us a clear sense of what the human body is up against.

Jack Black brings a useful pushiness to Carl Denham, whose enthusiasm can so easily excuse whatever he wants to do next. The part gives the human cast some welcome friction, though the same cannot be said for every travelling companion. Adrien Brody’s Jack Driscoll needs more to do if he is to command the attention the film gives him. Too many supporting characters are introduced with the expectation that time spent alongside them will make them interesting.

Jamie Selkirk’s editing is lively within the action, but too indulgent about how much action survives. A dangerous situation repeatedly acquires another complication after it has already made its point, and exhaustion begins to blunt excitement. James Newton Howard’s score is generous with the feeling, sometimes too generous when the central performances have already told us what matters. Some restraint here would have helped, particularly when the music presses an emotional response that the faces have already earned.

The pleasure is that the film believes we might care about Kong without needing to laugh at that possibility. There is little embarrassment about its fear or its tenderness, and that suits this sort of adventure. We would gladly lose some of the repeated jeopardy to spend longer with these two unlikely companions. Watch it when nobody needs an early night.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

76
Positive
10
Mixed
3
Negative
0

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
13 December 2005 · ★★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
100

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 full review →
Total Film
16 December 2005 · ★★★★★ · Total Film
100

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 full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Dan Jolin
90*

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 full review →
The AV Club
14 December 2005 · Keith Phipps
85*

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 full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Alan Jones
80

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 full review →
The Guardian
14 December 2005 · ★★★★ · Peter Bradshaw
80

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 full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is King Kong worth watching?
King Kong is worth watching for its moving bond between Ann Darrow and the ape, and we score it 81 out of 100. Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis give this creature adventure tenderness, but repeated action sequences stretch it to 188 minutes; we recommend it for an evening without an early bedtime.
How long is King Kong, and what is it rated?
King Kong runs 3h 08m. It is an adventure and drama film.
Where can I watch King Kong in the Philippines?
King Kong is streaming on HBO Max in the Philippines, and it is also available to rent from Apple TV from ₱149.00. It leaves HBO Max on 30 September. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How violent or frightening is King Kong, and is it suitable for children?
King Kong carries a UK 12A certificate and contains sustained creature danger and repeated action, so we would be cautious about choosing it for younger or easily frightened children. Kong’s strength remains worrying even when he earns our sympathy, and the long stretches of jeopardy make this better suited to teenagers comfortable with frightening adventures.
How does King Kong compare to Jurassic Park?
King Kong offers a more tender central relationship, but we recommend Jurassic Park for creature spectacle with clearer geography and a firmer sense of proportion. Both make their creatures worth watching between the scares; Jackson’s film asks for more patience with repeated danger, while Spielberg’s is the stronger choice for suspense.
What should I watch after King Kong?
After King Kong, try Jurassic Park (1993, Fi1m 91): For creature spectacle with clearer geography and a firmer sense of proportion. Then The Iron Giant (1999, Fi1m 88): A boy befriends a frightening stranger, and the tenderness never feels rationed.

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 2006

Nominated
Best Production Design
Won
Best Sound
Won
Best Sound Editing
Won
Best Visual Effects

If you liked this, try…

  1. Mighty Joe Young (1949) · not reviewed yetAnother misunderstood ape, with a gentler temperament and room for human affection.

  2. Beauty and the Beast (1946) · not reviewed yetA strange, tender encounter with a creature whose appearance makes sympathy difficult.

  3. Jurassic Park (1993, Fi1m 91)For creature spectacle with clearer geography and a firmer sense of proportion.

  4. The Iron Giant (1999, Fi1m 88)A boy befriends a frightening stranger, and the tenderness never feels rationed.

  5. The Host (2006) · not reviewed yetA family fights for its own while a river creature exposes official incompetence.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever