SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

George Taylor This is just a terrible movie. It's slow, at the time Jessica couldn't act worth a damn, had so many fake posters showing things that never happened. I saw this on a double feature with the equally dull Bug (read the book the Hephaestus Plague instead) and nearly fell asleep during both. The so called 'Robot' barely got used, instead falling back on Rick Baker in a beautiful ape suit. Just an abomination.

mlariosc-00551 Obviously the original will be one of the best films of all time but this reboot is an interesting point of view of the classic story. But, why does so many people hate this film? maybe because in most of the descriptions of this film say its a "remake" instead of a re imagine.

blackkatbone It's not a popular opinion, but this movie has all the bad effects of Wrath of the Titans and none of the charm. Lange's character is vapid and obnoxious. It's cheesy and over-dramatic, and the movie's only saving grace is its commentary on big oil and Western greed. I did not see the 1930's version, so I can't make a comparison.

mathijsschaap This is the King Kong movie from my year of birth. It gave me nightmares as a young child, but I've always loved the movie.I disliked the 1986 sequel 'King Kong Lives' but this one -to me- is still very likable. I love the humor and the acting is at its best.Yes, the effects are outdated and not convincing anymore, but at least it were live action effects and back then way more convincing than the CGI of today. Yes, Kong is the guy in a suit, but there was no Andy Serkis around back then or other actors who were capable of studying gorilla's and their movements (concidering the idea that Kong has to be a giant gorilla, instead of another unspecified unique primate), but later films had even worse convincing apes ('Trading places', 'Greystoke, the legend of Tarzan', 'Gorillas in the Mist', etc.).I just finished watching it today since like 30 years and I was surprised how good the acting was. I've never seen the 1933 movie, but I did see Peter Jackson's version. I prefer this one over Peter Jackson's version, because Jackson's version is too long in running time and boring from the moment with the giant insects on.Kong is the metaphor, the Carl Jung kind of archetype, that represents the dark and fierce side of nature that fascinates us. The story is a mirror to us, the other primates, showing us how stupid we are when we think we can dominate nature and bend it to our will, and destroying it when we discover we can't, because we are too proud to confess how stupid we were in the first place instead of admitting that we should have let nature alone.