Wow. King Kong is a misfire of Lucasian proportions.

The CGI animation of Kong is wonderous to watch, and Andy Serkis should get an Oscar for his role as Lumpy the Cook because he won’t get one for being Kong. For sure, Kong the CGI character wouldn’t have been believable without Serkis and his 132 facial sensors.

But, PJ, just because you were remaking a film originally shot in 1933, and setting it in 1933, doesn’t mean you should infuse it with 1933 sensibilities!

And it is way too long. I think someone other than PJ should have edited the film. Assuming anyone actually edited it. Kong is at least 1 hour too long. It didn’t need so many dinos, or bugs, or action sequences, or vestigial characters. (What’s up with Jimmy, for example?) Was PJ showing off, and justifying it by calling it a “tribute”? That’s what it felt like, in places.

L said that she felt that the film made it clear that mentally Kong is not an adult, and as such, the entire movie is an ongoing documentary of abuse of a 2-year old child. I see what she means. (After all, where is Kong’s “wedding tackle”? Clearly he’s pre-pubescent.)

This film just wasn’t *enjoyable* to watch. And that’s why King Kong (2005) is a tragedy.