I am always willing to defend Jackson's shortcomings as a director because he has given me some of the most memorable cinematic experiences ever. But his King Kong makes it nigh impossible to do just that.

This film's visual splendour seems almost inversely proportionate to its laborious and indulgent pacing. From the opening urban vistas to the vibrant and threatening jungles, this film looks amazing. Set pieces, CGI and production design all get the treatment we are now accustomed to when Jackson and co make a film. Kong looks fantastic, instilled with Serkis' genius (who should get a lot more credit than he usually gets).

It is a shame that they completely forgot about the story and to tell it…

So this does it. This ends my King Kong marathon.
1933, 1976, and 2005.

What did I think of Peter Jackson's adaption?
I've got to say, pretty dang awesome.

Jackson captures the feel and essence of the thirty's so incredibly well, that my favourite parts of the movie were that in the beginning and the end when we spend time in New York City. His attention to detail is extraordinary. The original clocked in at an hour and forty-six minutes, (while I watched the extended cut of Jackson's clocking in at three hours and twenty-one minutes) this let him flesh out some of the scenes that were rather rushed in the original. We don't see Kong until around 75 minutes…

Seven years since its release and this is my first watch of it.

I know, I'm late to the party, and with good reason it seems.

I guess I'm just not one for the CGI spectacle. All through the topping of threats on Skull Island I was bored, and with still over an hour to go of the film! Marauding make believe dinosaurs and killer bugs just don't do it for me I'm afraid. It was leaden and ludicrous; especially Billy Elliot's amazing use of a machine gun to pick the latter off Adrian Brody's body, never once injuring the leading man.

Where the film does excel though is in its quieter moments between Andy Serkis' Kong and Naomi Watts,…

I don't see what a lot of people have a problem with when it comes to this film. It took the original classic film and improved on it greatly in almost every aspect of film making.

I read that a lot of people complain that you don't see Kong until an hour into it-in the original we don't see Kong for the first 45 minutes-and that's half the film.

Many complain that we spend too much time with the human characters-now this I'll agree with because none of it really pays off. That's why I negate a star from this rating-now I do enjoy the first hour of this film a lot but I feel it's only Jack Black's character…

I am always willing to defend Jackson's shortcomings as a director because he has given me some of the most memorable cinematic experiences ever. But his King Kong makes it nigh impossible to do just that.

This film's visual splendour seems almost inversely proportionate to its laborious and indulgent pacing. From the opening urban vistas to the vibrant and threatening jungles, this film looks amazing. Set pieces, CGI and production design all get the treatment we are now accustomed to when Jackson and co make a film. Kong looks fantastic, instilled with Serkis' genius (who should get a lot more credit than he usually gets).

It is a shame that they completely forgot about the story and to tell it…