You might want to have a look at the original "King Kong" again--from the moment Kong appears, the original film is virtually non-stop dinosaur action.

In the original, the human characters are menaced by a Stegosaurus, a Brontosaurus, by Kong himself, by a two-legged lizard thing, by a Tyrannosaur, an Elasmosaur, and a Pterodactyl.

The lineup of monsters in Jackson's version differs slightly in the details, but the spirit is exactly the same--Skull Island is a dangerous, primordial place where most of the humans meet horrible deaths.

Kong protects Ann Darrow from a single T-rex in the original--in Jackson's version it is three T-rexes.

There are grounds for saying that the new "Kong" isn't a perfect film, but to go see "King Kong" and complain about dinosaurs is as silly as complainin about the giant ape.

Jeff Coleman

But that doesn't mean that it was a perfect film (the 1930's original). I personally think that the 1970's version was more focused - a better version than the original. That's just my own opinion.

King Kong, er, I mean, 'ho hum.'

Jackson had a movie in there. A good one, but he forgot he was making King Kong and threw in and hour's worth of Jurassic Park, about a half hour of the Poseidon Adventure and about 20 minutes of Gilligan's Island. Too bad, 'cause the monkey looked great, the Ann character was good and Jack Black should be banned from the screen. Plus its THREE HOURS long. C'mawn! If he edited out the perfunctory p'teweeraptors and the other stuff it could have been a classic.

I'm not quite sure how I'm supposed to respond to a review where the reviewer didn't see the movie. Granted, there are stinker movies out there, but it seems to me that a reviewer has an obligation to watch the film before writing a review.

It's like listening to the first three tracks on a CD and saying "It sucks". Well... the first three tracks may, but you really don't know a damn thing about the rest of the album.

The Dino DeLaurentis "Kong" was universally reviled as a terrible film, mentioning that your opinion is that it was better than the original doesn't improve the situation much.

One man's opinion.

This is not a review but an opinion.

Complaining about subplot and characters is more of a critique on you than the film. If you don't like stories with some depth, stick with Michael Bay and other Hollywood hacks, who bombard the viewer with visuals to distract from the plot holes and character motivations.

You should also avoid books.

I think King Kong 2005 is just highly overrated. My humble opinion. You guys may want to check out a post by John Bill

I was among the first to line up for Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong, with the excitement and eagerness of a child on Christmas Eve. And so I hate to say it but Yam is right -- this movie was just plain bad. I even thought his review was too kind, leaving out many other things he could have cited.
Defending Jackson's King Kong by saying it was faithful to the original or the popular 70s version entirely misses the point which is, remake or not, a good film should stand on its own and connect with today's audience. Peter Jackson's King Kong sadly but clearly did not.
The set-up with Jack Black took too way long. The boat ride could have been shortened too. By the time we get to Skull Island, the audience had already been waiting to see Kong for so long that naturally they were disappointed when, instead of Kong, they see a nonstop parade of dinasaurs. I'm speaking of course for the audience I was with in the screening and I can tell you many of them had actually walked out -- doubtless after calculating how many more hours they would have to endure before Jackson gets to the Empire State building.
You see, Jackson forgot that people would be lining up to see King Kong because of, well, Kong.

"72 years after the original, let's see what we can do with our latest CGI firepower and blow grandpa's brains out. We got US$ 200M!" That's King Kong 2005 to me.

The LOTR Trilogy is still Peter Jackson's best.

I think it's quality entertainment, but I mostly agree about the mish-mash of action and CGI effects in the film. It's Jurassic Park meets Arachnophobia 2005 for a good hour-plus.

That is all.

yam12: Surely you're joking. You didn't really walk out on the movie because there were too many dinosaurs in it, did you? Did the ticket takers look at you funny when you left?

Jeff Coleman covered the answer I was going to give you, but I'll add one more monster to Jeff's list: the pliers-monster.

At one point on the island, in the original, some technician acidentally left a pair of pliers on the set, and it wound up getting filmed. A decision was made to leave it in the movie, deciding that it resembled a monster.

The DeLaurentis "Kong" really is wretched; ugh. Watch the 1933 original again, yam12.

Not sure you can say "I think King Kong 2005 is just highly overrated" when you admit you walked out before it was over; you'd have more authority if you sat it out to the end.

You are, however, overrating John Bill's post.

Miron sez:

You see, Jackson forgot that people would be lining up to see King Kong because of, well, Kong..

Maybe you were. But the original movie told a story, and some were hoping for the story. The Empire State Building scene is the climax; of course you have to wait until the end.

El Bicho already said what I would've said to that.

So looks like all the bases have already been covered, never mind...

El Bicho -- Please tell me you're not saying this three-hour mess is uncriticizable. I found a lot to criticize, and I think all it says about me as a viewer is that I have a short attention span for dull CGI-generated visuals. I wonder if this movie doesn't signal the death-knell for computer graphics. I sat there numb, along with the rest of the audience. There was a palpable lack of tension and excitement in the theater. How long can you watch actors screaming at a blue screen, or a back projection screen, or whatever the hell they were reacting to?

Having said that, I liked the overall period look of the film, found Jackson's Kong to be an expressive and sympathetic creature, and thought the Kong & Ann Darrow plot had some vitality to it. The problem is in the build-up, or rather the lack of one.

Why was the 1930's original a classic? Part of it was a breakthrough in animation and maybe, technology (then). That's all.

What about the story? A variation of "Beauty and the Beast" in a different setting and -literally - scale?

The original Kong was just "concept"...it did not contribute to cinema's development like Eisenstein's Potemkin or Fritz Lang's Metropolis.

One simple person's opinion: all King Kong films were overrated. Thank you very much Mr. Jackson for LOTR, but "King Kong" was just a disappointment.

Let's not be blown away by CGI gymnastics.

That movie sucked! It take like an hour just to get to king kong! It was wack!

HORRIBLE FIM! NOT AN INTERESTING MOVIE AT ALL, TOO LONG AND WEAK PERFORMANCES. FILMS LIKE THIS MAKES US FEEL SAD ABOUT THE INDUSTRY.