I saw it today. This Kong is a pretty decent actioner that raises the bar for special effects.

SPOILERS: Once you get past the interminable, time-destroying initial 45-50 minutes, there's action aplenty, starting with the near-shipwreck as they approach Skull Island. There are quite a few thoughtful and imaginative touches that give you more than your money's worth: the brontosaurus stampede; the initial billets-doux twixt Ann Darrow and Kong when he first gets her back to her lair; Kong's rampage in Times Square (the set has just the right theatrical touch, like the fireworks near the beginning of "Gangs of New York"), and Kong's ass-slide in Central Park. END OF SPOILERS
But too often the film lacks restraint and intelligence. The action sequences go on far, far, FAR too long: how many split second escapes, missed tyrannosaurus nips, getting caught by jungle vines, last-second rescues by the big ape, etc., can you endure before sheer exhaustion sets in? And the constant spinning camerawork during the action scenes (no doubt a device to keep you from focusing on the rather cheaply executed backdrops) are irritating and obvious. Restraint and intelligence enabled "Jurassic Park" to be not only a great specials-film, but a fine drama: Spielberg had the good sense to reserve his most hair-raising scenes for the smallest dinosaurs, not the biggest. Here, big (and long) are everything. And while Ann Darrow's attempts to rescue Kong had their touching (and yes, imaginative) moments, excessive length made them ridiculous (and director Peter Jackson couldn't resist throwing in 15 or 20 more hair-raising escapes for Darrow on the Empire State building alone--ye gods!). And Kong took longer to expire than Violeta, the heroine of Verdi's "La Traviata."
Naomi Watts makes a very appealing Darrow, right up there with Fay Wray. The rest of the cast is better than good, except for Jack Black, who, as director Carl Denham, does so much beady-eyed, gape-mouthed staring that he looks like he's been lobotomized and is just discovering it.

This Kong is about a thousand times better than the 1976 abomination. But so is just about every other movie I've seen since then. While I enjoyed it a lot on the big screen, I doubt that I could sit through it again. It made me appreciate more than ever the genius of the original, whose specials are still truly amazing for the time (and stand up superbly), and which told its story better, more succinctly and more credibly than this one.

Saw it tonight.

The kind of remake nobody seems to be making--a passionate homage and aesthetic transcendence of the original; it is also an exhilarating piece of filmmaking, and a convincing portrayal of both the human condition and artistic principle. At times a very subtle film, at others an excessive, self-indulgent joy to behold.

Jack Black has been overlooked here. I found his performance full of charm and charisma, and I was on his Herzogian director's side all the way until he succumbed to the greed and cash of his own higher-ups. When the others are all reaching for their guns, Denham reaches for his camera. I loved him.

The opening third didn't drag at all; in fact, Jackson uses it wisely, for the most part, to set up character relationships. You have to admire the original though, for doing so in such a concise time (clocking in at just over eighty minutes). That this both transcends and enhances feelings of the original pays testament to Jackson's storytelling prowess. And this is a film as much about Film itself as it is about a giant gorilla falling in love with a girl.

Exhilarating and, ultimately, exhausting. One of the films of the year, and I have no reason to see it again.

Nope, not at all. I saw some sort of interview w/ Jackson awhile ago, and he is so fucking arrogent. He believes that he is the one and only persdon doing anything "good" for cinema. Aside from the fact that I hate the director, I have also been less then impressed with his previous work (and yes, Im talking about more then just LOTR)and I also do not feel like wasting 3 hours of my time watching something that was filmed in front of a green screen. Is that enough rant for you?

Technically, the animals are named Apatosaurus. Brontosaurus is an incorrect name, used as a popular term by the big audience.

Of all people, I figured Capo would be on my side, but alas perhaps the holiday sauce and (war crimes-like) British cuisine probably finally got to our comrade in arms.

Yeah, Ron, I got caught up in that stampede. My final sentence sums it up for me: an extraordinary film, and I have no reason or desire to see it again.

If that makes sense. Not that I have to defend my opinion to an elitist nobjocky like you.

By the way, you\'re needed here . Pop in for a cup of tea sometime.

Haha Capo. Wait, what the hell is a "nobjocky?"

Actually, I don't slam your opinion Capo, for hey I respect you on a very high level. I just wondered at the time....why 3/4 score for KING KONG? But now I understand quite clearly.

Hah, Capo. Never miss any opritunity to pimp the boards, huh?

Hey, Capo has to feed his kids.....or whores, whatever which I can't remember.