good back-story, and good acting

Absolutely brilliant

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Blistering performances.

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.

For the amount of money spent on this fiasco, you'd think there would be some quality movie making involved...but no, this turned out to be the cheap way out.The producers got the cheapest actors they could find, spent little on special effects, and modernized the story to include an Oil Company AND a super tanker, heh heh...Oh, they must have searched a long time to get a high school screen writer too, there's a line in there, "Holy Smoke", that had me laughing when they saw the huge stockade...This one is the bottom of the barrel for entertainment...

I had first seen the outstanding original of 'King Kong', still transcendent and captivating in its then-prescient use of special effects wizardry, then Sir Peter Jackson's recent remake, which was still extremely impressive. I had only heard horrible things about the 70's version, but I have come to admire Guillermin's films that I had watched, and look at that cast, so when I found the blu used, for a good price, I took a chance. It's definitely the runt of the litter, but is by no means a disaster. It's intriguing that they had originally wanted Joseph Sargent to direct with Peter Falk starring, and that Meryl Streep was considered for the role that eventually went to Jessica Lange. The changes they made to update Kong for the seventies were intriguing (as they wanted the script to be completely different from the Cooper/Schoedsack masterpiece), and I'm left curious, had Sir Peter Jackson chosen to make Kong a 21st-century schizoid apeman instead of doing a period piece, how that would have transpired. Even being Canadian, seeing the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center made me wistfully nostalgic. The only part of the film that was excruciating to watch was when Kong is made to perform for the American Bicentennial festivities, and at the ending, I was curious how Lange got down from the rooftop of one of the towers so fast. The answer probably lies on the cutting room floor, and the editing was probably rushed for release date, so no one must have noticed...

As we all know, there are three versions of King Kong. The 1933 version, this version, and the 2005 version by peter Jackson. Jackson's Kong was amazing, 1933 King Kong was meh, and this King Kong is just utter trash. First of all, the story. Boy, does it stink. First of all, the villain is somebody working to drill oil on skull island. What? What did the other king kongs have to do with oil? They didn't! Plus, (my biggest problem in this film) there are no dinosaurs! Dinosaurs are what made the other 2 movies so entertaining. The director of this piece of garbage removed the dinosaurs because "they interfered with the love story". Well, King Kong is not supposed to be a love story! It's an adventure story! Plus, the characters are very weak. Dwan was just a stupid ditz whose attitude got pretty annoying, and the other characters aren't even remotely interesting. Also, the effects stink! Kong is obviously someone in a gorilla suit. I don't even know what more to say. It just stinks. If you want to see a remake of King Kong, see Jackson's version. This is a King Kong you can definitely skip.